Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

Let's just make this the catch all debate thread.

Do you guys feel like a couple's religious beliefs should determine whether they're able to adopt or be foster parents? Would that be discrimination? (Or just plain stupid when the system is overloaded with kids and there aren't enough foster parents as it is?)

I know there are a lot if Catholics involved in the foster care system because of the religion's emphasis on the importance of caring for orphans etc. Is it the same for Muslims and Jews? At what point is it okay for the government to step in and declare certain beliefs harmful for a child?

Additionally, the abortion vs adopting kids out thing came up before, and I'm kind of wondering, if given only two choices whether even someone extremely religious would opt for abortion rather than their child being placed in a system where they'll be raised with completely opposed values and beliefs.


Also, I never commented on this before but Steve needs to turn that lost Titanic ticket thing into a story.

For questions 1 and 2, I think it's a better idea to determine all this not on the basis of religion, but on the basis of how well-off, 'socially acceptable' and caring the foster family is. Just because someone identifies as a Muslim doesn't necessarily mean they advocate for Sharia Law, there are plenty of assimilated Muslims in the Western world (specifically MEDCs/1st world countries, such as USA). Background checks would bring up how 'socially acceptable' these people are - and I define socially acceptable as upholding/accepting social norms and its values (basically Western values in this case - which typically stem from Judeo-Christian origins). As to how caring a parent is, that's hard to tell and probably will never be discerned from the get go (in most cases). Implementing these checks will probably add a whole lot of clutter to the current system though, so I'll just leave it as it is. 

I don't know. Up for them to decide.

Yeah the last one I'm not expecting anyone to be able to give a serious answer on, it was just a thought exercise along the lines of wait, by picking the most moral option, you're potentially dooming your child into growing up into a degenerate like Steve. BAD ENDING, go back and try again.

Though even in a CYOA option 1 or option 2 ONLY would seem a little forced. :D

Okay, reading a little more, and a shortage of Muslim foster parents seems to be dilemma their community is going through, so I was a little hasty in assuming there'd be a lot of them.

This article interviews a Muslim foster mom and goes into it more, but the problem seems to be the culture/religion/whatever doesn't have a precedent for adopting kids out and the assumption is they'd go to family members. Which, kind of an issue once you've immigrated to another country. There are difficulties like the father not being allowed to be alone with a foster daughter and the mother not being alone with a son, and having to wear hijabs because even if you've raised a kid from a baby they're not technically family members and laws for 'strangers' still apply.

It also kind of briefly touches on the issue of religious parents having their kids placed in a non-religious home. In any foster situation it's not that uncommon for the biological mom to try and keep some kind of contact (since the ideal situation there is for her to get her kids back someday if she didn't give them up voluntarily) but in a situation like this, or in the case of Jewish parents too I'd assume, you'd have them trying to push dietary laws and things when stuff like that IMO is really the business of the people actually raising the kids.

Of course as you pointed out there are people who practice religions to different degrees, and it really does seem like it's going to come down to social acceptance, practical or not.

This whole thing might end up being moot in some states anyhow thanks to everyone's favorite debate on whether chicks should have dicks. I was going to bring up circumcision and ask if it was something a biological mom should have a say in if their kids were in a religious home, but lol, apparently I wasn't taking that one far enough. Depending on where you live, Mom might only get a letter after the fact stating 'little Johnny got her dick cut off today'.

I'm not sure if it's just them or other states too, but Illinois is in the middle of some controversy now because they won't allow foster homes or hire social workers that aren't fully supportive of gender identities etc. That includes support for hormone treatment and reassignment surgery for minors, which is going to cut out a lot of potential foster homes and most religious ones. Not sure of the statistics for Illinois specifically, but in most places the system is completely overloaded and there are enough struggles to find suitable foster parents as it is. I can't imagine that being a sustainable situation at all.

(Oh and if we need a third debate, holy shit, kids getting reassignment surgery could be a contender. I hadn't realized they're drugging kids up and giving them surgery as young as four in some countries. Not sure what the limit is in the US or if there is one, but I'd have expected doctors to be a little more vocal against that kind of thing, considering they'll take steps to assure it's really really really what someone definitely wants and won't regret even for cosmetic surgery a lot of the time, and how the hell can a young child make a decision like that on their own. It's straight up child mutilation but it's okay because politics. :/ )

I think it comes down to how the foster family deals with their child's different (or contrary) outlook on life and the world. That's a thing for them to figure out, not the government's adoption policies. It'd be surprising if practicing Muslims didn't think about the possible complications, such as the ones you proposed, and were prepared to take responsibility. If they can't resolve the issue, and it worsens and becomes a problem, the issue at hand may require Child Protection Services - and once it crosses that bridge the government can take the reigns.

This whole gender thing is eating away at Australian schools and it's infuriating. Instead of being taught about the two sexes (and anything in between) in a biological sense, elementary students are being told 'they can be whatever they want to be'. Peddling out this nonsense has already left many of said students confounded over basic anatomy - so now we have to deal with a generation of kids who don't know if it's okay to use the lady's bathroom if you think you're a girl and vice versa (This thing happened several times recently. What a joke). Seeing that the glorification of this cancer has permeated everywhere (ie. universities, America's adoption system) is sickening. Shutting down avenues of thought, by systematically cherry picking who can and can't adopt kids based on their political leanings etc., is exactly what's fueling this idiocy. That, and everyone who thinks it's healthy or okay to let this carry on.

 

Anyways yeah the Illinois thing is detrimental to the kids since the system there will be less efficient and effective.

Nuke North Korea y/n?

No, nuking civillions is not something to be done in almost all scenarios. Plus, the fallout could effect our allies such as Japan and SK. Howwver, I'd probably support a suprise attack for humanitarian reasons. :)

First post ever on mobile... It only took me 1.2 years to figure out.

What if it turns out that UVA kid isn't brain damaged, but, was deliberately infected with the Z Virus before that sent him home and it's the last act we can do before the infected hordes bring about the collapse of civilization? What then?

Well, quarantine would help. Depends on how the Z Virus spreads. If it's through the usual zombie shenanigans then it should be fine to just lock everything down and wait it out.

Really it would be funnier if one could convince China to cut off all aid from North Korea to see how much longer they could last.

Would they collapse from within with the brainwashed starving zombie like masses finally being motivated enough to overthrow the government and feasting on Kim Jong Un's fat bloated corpse?

Or would they in desperation, explode into an orgy of violence and finally invade South Korea again resulting in a total scorched earth policy and a lot of carpet bombing of yellow people courtesy of the US who have been dying to change it up a bit from bombing brown people?
 

I like End's solution.

I think it'll be interesting to read through 'Without You, There is No Us: My Time with the Sons of North Korea's Elite'. It gives a good insight into exactly what the title says - and more. It's from the perspective of a woman who went over there to teach English to prodigal and wealthy students in North Korea. It quickly becomes clear that, because of NK's isolationist policies, even people of such high ranking are brainwashed to the extent that they believe NK made the internet etc. etc. A highlight of the book is her recount of what happened, at a personal and cultural level, when the previous ruler (before Kim Jong Un) died. Anyways, if China cut off relations the people wouldn't know about it. In fact, they're taught that NK is the most prosperous nation in the world. So situation A won't happen. Situation B also wouldn't happen since NK probably doesn't have the manpower to launch an invasion force. Honestly, they would probably all just starve to death.

heads yes, tails no.

No. Not only would we hurt South Korea in the process, but there are millions of innocent lives that we'd be needlessly ending.

Nuke America y/n?

I'd give my own opinion, but I think it's illegal, so...

Do you have something against America? This country is the greatest in the world.

No, it's not. Far from it.

What is the greatest country in the world?

Hard to pick an exact one. The Nordic Countries, Canada, Ireland, Australia and Switzerland are all up there.

Seeing that Switzerland has the refugee rapist thing going on, I'd be hesitant to include it in 'the list'. But yeah, those countries are pretty good.

Switzerland might, but really that's far from what it would take to push it's from its position. Sure, it's a shitty thing, but it's ultimate effect is pretty low and it's just been made into a much bigger thing by the media. All in all, the amount of increased rapes is fairly negligible on a country-level.

To be fair, if I had to pick the greatest country in the World I definitely would pick somewhere in Norden. Probably Finland, mainly because I think the language sounds like liquid gold. They also generally have excellent education etc. That being said, a friend of mine did a project recently to determine how good the Norden countries are compared to how much the UK media bums them, and apparently quite a lot have bad drinking culture problems and stuff. I guess everywhere has it's issues though and most people are just gonna say their country is the best.

Really not sure why you're picking greatest country by how nice the language sounds, but whatever. Anyhow, the alcohol issues don't seem bad enough to the point I've ever heard of them or they've brought down the standard of living, so whatever. Most people will probably say their country is best, but they for the most part seem to be patriotic idiots brainwashed with this special snowflake syndrome on a national level, while also happily calling out said syndrome in others. 

What's his face from Newsroom had a pretty cool opening on that actually, where a college student asks him why America's the greatest country on earth, and he gives some noncommittal response, before when pushed going on a rant about how America's far from the best and sucks now, and people shouldn't be taught it's still the best when it lost that role a while back.

I wasn't really being completely serious with the Finland thing. If I was asked, I'd have to say I haven't been to all of the countries or even seen enough of my own to decide. If I really had to pick, I would go somewhere in Norden though. However, there are absolutely loads of cities I haven't been to even in the UK, or barely visited. 

Yeah, I'd agree with the patriotism thing. How can anyone tell what's the best country when they almost certainly haven't been to anywhere near even half of the countries that exist, let alone gotten to know them well. Yeah, I saw that speech too and thought it was well written.

I wouldn't say you need to personally visit all the countries to make an assessment, you could just look at the statistics and facts for this one. I've not noticed any temperature change or seen any speciation, that's not really an argument against global warming or evolution.

Yeah, but that's not quite the same because global warming and evolution are theories independent of opinion, whereas what you think is the best country is based more on opinion. Also, evolution and global warming aren't good examples because they require such large time scales to notice on a personal level; you couldn't possibly notice the changes to affect your 'opinion'. 

Sure, you can base it on statistics, but most people are gonna base it on either entirely on opinion if they're a cretin, or a mixture of opinion and statistics if they've actually thought about it. I guess if you want to try to look at it from a completely objective POV (which isn't really that useful because, to some extent, it is opinion based and is partially a general feel for the country), then you could just decide entirely on statistics. However, if you really want to have a sound personal opinion of what the best country in the World is, I'd say the best approach would be to go to each country, get to know it well, weigh up the statistics on a huge number of variables, and think about it for a good 50 years. Seeing as that's really not practical, I'd say it's a moot debate. Of course, that's my opinion on a matter of opinion, so you can just straight up disagree and that's it. Your approach to look at the stats and decide entirely on that, I guess, would be better more for objectively deciding which country is statistically the best place to live, but subjectively it's a different matter.

Well yeah, ultimately you can take pretty much everything to a morally relativistic point where nothing matters, but if you're taking the things people tend to find important, such as happiness, standard of living, HDI, that kind of thing, you can fairly easily form a general consensus. Evolution and global warming work as examples as just because I can't realistically personal experience it's impact, I can't realistically visit every country on Earth.

Personal experience wouldn't make your opinion in the field better, it would probably just add more bias. I could go to North Korea, and experience a grand, luxurious time there without ever seeing all the shitty things. If you're going to add the personal experience of living, say a moderate lifestyle, you'd need the personal experiance of living in pretty much every position in the country to avoid becoming biased.

Well, it's not so much morally relativistic as just generally relativistic from the point I'm arguing. What I meant was that it's entirely relative what people personally like in a country or culture, and that's also why I don't think just basing it on statistics is actually a means of forming a personal opinion. I agree with the general consensus thing; yeah sure you can come to a general consensus. But that would be the 'best statistical country to live in' rather than the 'my personal opinion on the best country' according to the distinction I made in my last post.

Okay, if you're arguing about the evolution etc. thing for that reason then I'd agree. I thought you were arguing it from the premise that having personal experience isn't needed to form an opinion. Yeah, I agree that it's unrealistic to visit every country, and so have a personal opinion on the best country in the World is moot (my original point) for that very reason. The best thing you can do is form a statistical best country, because a personal opinion best country is unfeasible.

I would say that personal experience would be needed to create an opinion on the best country, because opinion is how you personally feel about something, and being in each country personally would allow that to form. I see your point, but that's exactly why I argued that you'd need to see the whole country and basically experience at least every main city (imo) to form a decent personal opinion on a country. Then that obviously leads to the argument from impracticality, which leads to the idea of a personal opinion on a country being moot, as it's unfeasible to do so with all 200+ countries.

Yeah, you can be completely relativistic, but by that means we have no way to judge or compare anything and society pretty much breaks down entirely if you don't have a generally agreed upon basis for what's good or bad. Sure, you could say my personal opinion on the best country is whatever and no matter what no one could disagree as it is your opinion, but I think if we're taking a general consensus of what's valuable in a country which pretty much most people would agree with, you could get the countries previously mentioned. 

Yeah, I'd agree with you that ultimately personal experience can't be used as a metric due to impracticality.

Yeah, but the whole point of personal opinion is that it's relative to the person. Sure, relativism isn't a good approach to morality (imo), but this is a matter of personal preference in terms of how you like people to act, or what kind of architecture you enjoy etc. I guess this just comes down to a difference in semantics. I'd agree that a general consensus can be made based on stats like literacy rates and happiness polls etc., I was just saying that it's illogical to think that any person can soundly say that any one country is their favourite according to their own personal likes and dislikes. Looks like the stats general consensus would be the best way to decide, if you really wanted to pin down the best country (I'm sure it's probably been done somewhere). *Cue mattc swooping in with 13 articles showing all the stats being broken down and shit*

Yeah, but personal opinion's not what I'm going for here as I've said, as it's a useless place to take something as all it does is become absolutely relativistic where you can say whatever you want and there's no comparison method whatever, so yeah, stats it is then, which I'd say the countries I've named fairly easily dominate the top of the list, depending on which stats you focus on.

The countries always chosen as 'best/happiest countries' I've noticed always have it in common that they're only having to manage a tiny population on a small amount of land. And even then their people tend to express their happiness by killing themselves and not having kids.

I think Canada is the only exception to this, but then again, Malk will likely kill himself and never have kids.

Yeah, Canada does kind of break that rule. It's not that there's a causation between small population and happiness, it's that the Nordic countries tend to be far happier as they all share similar social policies and are all fairly small in the grand scheme of things.

I could throw Australia into the mix as an exception, seeing that the liveability over here is good. The only tangible downside I can see to living here is our reliance on foreign investment - and needing China to buy up our land because without South Asian capitol we're screwed. 

Is it illegal? I wouldn't think so, but eh, whatever. No, odn't nuke America, as in the grand scheme of things it's one of the better countries when compared to all the shitty ones. Glad we settled that one.

No i am actually fairly certain it is illegal to advocate for that type of thing to happen to your country, or at least, it is considered a threat that would be investigated by our great intelligence agencies, and I for one don't want to end up on a watch list.

In any case looking at the issue from a capitalist frame of reference, America is certainly a great country. The problem is due to the fact it is a classist society, for those who aren't at the top of the food chain, it is the opposite, whether or not such people realize it or not. But, no, I somewhat agree with you, for vampires and the people who lick their boots, I'm sure their standard of living is just great and they can turn a blind eye to suffering peoples because those people aren't part of their class, and there is no sense in fighting for them, as fighting for them would not benefit their own class interests.

When compared to other shitty classist societies, sure it's one of the better ones no doubt.

You're from Pakistan, you're already on a watch list.

No, I don't think it is illegal. You'd probably be surveillance if you said anti-American things AND their was a reasonable chance you'd do something, but I don't think Communist-Muslims are high on their list, seeing as you kind of need to have a working identity before you can get to blowing up shit.

No, overall their standard of living is far higher than any countries, including and especially the Communist ones. If you do find a better system than Capitalism, let me know, though.

Ok I hope what i'm about to say ends the whole "you can't be a Commie Muzzie hypocrite xDDDDD" thing you keep on bringing up everytime I post something in regards to politics.

For all my life I've been Muslim, it's been my ancestry, my history, my culture, my language, my identity, my opiate, my family, my friends, my community, and my personal beliefs. In contrast, I've only started looking into communism after Trump was inaugurated.

There's simply no way, especially where I am in life, that I can just simply renounce Islam in its entirety just because I read the German Ideology, even if I agree with Marx's historical materialism, due to the fact Islam is so intertwined with who I am as a person, just thinking of myself as agnostic or atheist makes me nervous.

Maybe eventually, someday I will regard myself as agnostic communist, but for right now, mainly due to Pascal's Wager, I cannot renounce Islam.

I hope that makes sense.

And on your last point, so as to not rehash the whole communism vs. capitalism debate, I will simply say that I believe socialism, and more specifically communism, is not only a better system than capitalism, but that it is inevitable if we go by Feurbach's and Marx's and Engel's and Lenin's and Mao's theories on materialism, rather than, say, Hegel's theories on idealism. You can feel free to disagree with me if you want, but unless you're a factory manager or something, I don't see why you should disagree with me considering communism would most likely aid your own class interests.

OK, definitely doesn't End it, it's just you saying you don't what to abandon Islam because you're been a Muslim your whole life, even though it is contradictory.

Pascal's Wager is easily disproven drivel.

Because as pointed out, the standard of living, which takes into account everyone, is better under capitalism, as stastics show.

And the proud warrior of Communism and Islam falls silent.

I've already told you why I consider myself both Islamic and communstic, you can take it or leave it.

And since communism has never been achieved, I'm not sure how exactly to argue with you that communist societies are better than capitalist ones with statstics.

No, you've explained why you're scared of Pascal's Wager, even  though that's a bullshit argument, and it's also just you saying "I don't care my beliefs are contradictory." You haven't explained how you can hold both of them, thus it's drivel.

Well, we can look at all the many attempts to achieve Communist societies and how they all failed with massive death tolls, and how Capitalist ones actually work. That's a good argument.

To be fair, I've got to agree with Steve. Pascal's Wager is not a very good argument for believing in the existence of anything, because I could easily define lots of things that have the omniqualities and willing to dish divine punishment at a glance if you don't worship them, and so why not believe in the omnipotent turtle God? Why not believe in the Christian God? And so on...

And that's not even to mention that fear of punishment or not getting into the afterlife you want or whatever leading to the existence of a being or more than one being relies on some big assumptions.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't be a Muslim, just that it's not logical to be one according to that argument.

Or, there could be a god who's insulted that Fazz worshiped Allah, an obvious barbaric mockery of the God that actually exists and thus condemns him, but is willing to give my Atheism a slide as it didn't insult him as much. Fazz has just been brainwashed by his shitty Bourgeoisie parents to think that he should be Muslim, because that's why you need to follow an ideology like Islam or Communism: because there's a gun to your head!

You raise good points.

And with that, Fazz was no longer Muslim.

Pascal's Wager is for dumb jerk-offs. Any religion could be plausible, and most of them are mutually exclusive. 

What percentage of your own income do you give to help those 'at the bottom of the food chain' each year? Just curious.

2.5% for the Muslim part of him, then all excess money for the Communist part.

About 50% to 80% I'd say (I'm still at that stage in life where I'm banking on my parents for everything, so yeah I can afford that.) 

Though I'd say in the grand scheme it's as irrelevant as voting Republican or Democrat.

Well if true and assuming you work more than like, ten hours a week then that's impressive. In my experience internet commies' dedication to their cause usually begins and ends at shrill rants typed on pricey devices, but I was thinking it was possible you might for religious reasons if nothing else.

I don't think it's irrelevant at all, because I'm sure that math, the greatest fake science could prove that X amount of normal people putting their money where their mouth is could be a lot more effective than waiting around for the government to do it for them.

When we first moved to america, we lived in a pretty bad ghetto, but my dad was the stereotypical immigrant with like 50 side hustles and now we live pretty decently. Not trying to humble brag at all, my point is at least until I graduate college, I can quite comfortably live off my dad's hard earned money. (part of being a privileged communist is realizing your dad is a member of the bourgeoisie.) So yeah I donate as much of my own personal money as I can.

>that X amount of normal people putting their money where their mouth is could be a lot more effective than waiting around for the government to do it for them.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, could you elaborate? Are you saying me donating is going to help seize the means of production faster or something?

No your commie wankery is completely irrelevant, but I mean if the point is about transferring excess money from those who have more than they need to help those who don't have enough, well anybody who isn't a selfish asshole can do that on their own.

So another hypocritical thing, enjoys the luxuries of wealth while complaining about how others enjoy the luxuries of wealth. Yes, I'm sure you're only "using the system to destroy the system!" rather than being an entitled dickweed and just enjoying Capitalism and fancy things like nice clothes, good food and a nice room, before going on your fancy laptop to DESTROY CAPITALISM!

But then again, what could I expect from an Imperialist walking contradiction?

You're kind of strawmanning me.

I think everybody should enjoy luxuries, not just rich people.

I have nothing against people who live good lives, I think everybody should be able to live good lives however, and I don't think its right for people to exploit others through wage slavery. Since I am not a bourgeois, I am not exploiting anyone, at least not directly, but living in a capitalist society means we all do exploiting, bourgeois or not.

It is very possible to destroy the system from within. I've used this example before, but Che Guevara's higher class status allowed him to become a doctor and aid the revolution that way.

No, you just happily take the money of the Bourgeoise and spend it on yourself. You're happy to spend the money made from exploitation on yourself and enjoy it. I didn't personally hurt anyone, but let me enjoy the luxuries that  came from it!

Yes, do tell. Please, how are you furthering the cause for Communism through your struggle?

do you have this image in your mind that every communist must be a poor person, otherwise they're just a hypocrite?

all of this is probably b8 anyway, im not sure why I'm even bothering to respond.

as per your last point, do you think any headass trapping out the street is going to be able to read Marx or crtiques of political economy? To study requires a good education and a good enviroment and a means of acquiring the books in the first place.

I'm gonna 'nitpick' that last part. Anyone can come out of a situation if they try hard enough. Take Lincoln for example. He started off as a poor nobody before he began his political career. He himself said that he had a very limited education (never went to college, schooling was not good), and took it upon himself to 'self-educate'. All he needed was to continue wanting to learn - and that brought him out of his 'bad environment'. Unless there aren't structural classes such as ancient China's or India's caste hierarchy, it's not so far-fetched for some headass trapping out on the street to do a full 180. Even then, however, these social constructs can change (via social change - Civil Rights Movement etc.). 

ah yes the old bootstraps argument, which fails to answer how one acquires bootstraps in the first place. 

because it's much easier for privilaged people to blame poor people for their shitty life as opposed to the systems which exploit them.

Poor people who know how to bust their ass don't stay poor for long. That's the reason you have people coming over from other countries with absolutely nothing wind up becoming doctors and shit. It's because they know how to make the most of opportunities in a way people who take it for granted never bother to. Similar with the people who grew up in the Depression vs the following, lazier generations waiting around for them to die so they could blow through everything they worked for all their lives.

I admit I kind of don't give a shit about poor people in first world countries tbh beyond wishing we had a better system in place for people with mental/physical disabilities or chronic conditions. (because what we do have there is objectively shit)

But for a healthy person, there are plenty of jobs you can get that don't need and special skills or education and depend on 1.) fill out an application 2.) don't be a child molester 3.) show up.

Really no need for 'boot straps', if you're low income and especially if you have kids you can get grants for education, free food, get your rent subsidized, and it's not hard to get free furniture, free clothes and school supplies and health care for your kids. It's all just a matter of calling around and then getting walked through filling out some papers, and having sense when it comes to managing the money you do have.

Yeah it's not a great situation to be in and the stress is there when money is tight, plus there's not much of a safety net when it comes to emergencies. But if working 30-40 hours pays your rent and bills and leaves you a little left over to save or blow on whatever, I'm not seeing where the need for pity comes in, compared to like, the villager walking five miles for dirty water who had to sell her baby for a ten pound bag of rice.

...I mean, that's still a terrible, unequal, stressful life compared to rich people. The fact that some people weren't lucky enough to be born in rich families and thus have to go through all of that is why I pity them, and I feel it is wrong some people have to go through that whereas others do not have to.

Social democracy and social benefits are great within the context of a capitalist society, but looked at it from a greater perspective, they do not solve the problems of capitalism, mainly wage slavery and classism.

Not wrong enough to actually stop treating yourself with all the luxuries afforded to you by your parents' money, but you know, whatever.

EDIT: Also, well class mobility exists, classism isn't a problem. Hard for you to say it doesn't when your dad started as a shit-for-nothing immigrant and you now live comfortably. Plus, wage slavery's sure as shit bullshit, the fact that you need to work to support yourself isn't slavery, it's nature. If you're out in the middle of the jungle trying to hunt, you're not a slave to yourself because you have to do shit to survive, because that's natural. Hell, even in Communism it's from each according to his ability. You're a slave to the system, man.

Oh, unless you're just taking advantage of the hard-work of your parents like some entitled cunt, but whatever.

Ah yes, the communist mindset that fails to realise that in this age of globalism and capitalism, class disparities can be quickly bridged by hard work, ingenuity and so forth. In what society do you live in that doesn't provide the bootstraps in the first place via basic economics? In what country do you live in that has structural discrimination against the working class/poor people? What systems are exploiting them? Tell us so that we can address these so-called systems and expose them. Stop seeing the world in terms of privilege and advantage, and start seeing it in terms of disadvantage. Then, you can actually start helping the people who need help - instead of whining about how well-off people are well-off. Prove that there is inequity in the system, instead of inequality. Until you can, I will not buy into your assertion that there're these shadowy systems, imposed by the government/the economy/businesses/any of their benefactors, that make it impossible for one to climb the social ladder.

Basically, inequality ≠ inequity. Do something useful if you're so adamant about fighting for the people, and find out what systems discriminate against a group(s) of people.

I would like to know, what is the difference between inequality and inequity? Surely they can exist at the same time?

Inequality = difference in size, degree, circumstances, etc.; lack of equality.

Inequity = lack of fairness or justice.

What I mean by inequality ≠ inequity is, that inequality is not an indication of inequity - that is decisive in proving the existence of said inequity. There needs to be more evidence to determine inequity other than "I'm poor, therefore the system discriminates against me."

Can they exist at the same time? Of course. What you need to prove in order to convince anyone that the current systems discriminate any group of people, such as the working class, is that there is a causation relationship between the two instead of a correlation. If I sold ice creams on a day where shark attacks spiked by 5%, it doesn't mean that me selling ice creams caused that 5% spike in shark attacks. That's a correlation relationship. If, however, a lot of people were bleeding while swimming in shark infested waters on that day - that is most probably a causation.

Also, think on everything else I mentioned two posts ago. By asking yourself those questions who knows, maybe you'll be able to expose some of said shadowy systems.

Thanks for your answer as it is truly insightful.

> "I'm poor, therefore the system discriminates against me."

Though I do disagree with the idea of class, and thus the idea of poor people being acceptable in society, I am not necessarily saying this. You can be poor through your own laziness, but the systems of exploitation against those who aren't of the upper class are very real.

To clarify, I do not believe that you cannot become successful through hard work. I think that, especially for people who aren't meant to be, there are quite many obstacles inherent in capitalist societies that keep lower class people from transitioning to higher classes and thus better lives. It is therefore my belief that the bootstraps argument is a shit one because it is not true to the reality of our society, and instead is more representative of an idealist meritocractic society as seen through the lenses of privilaged people who don't have to work as hard as disenfranchised or poor people in order to achieve the same success. In essence, yeah, I'm sure it's easy for you to say why not just pull yourself up by your own bootstraps you lazy moocher, if only you worked hard enough you'd be the next Abraham Lincoln! But this viewpoint is simply a bullshit idealist one, again, not true to our society, only parroted by people benefiting from the State (which I will take about later on).

First to deconstruct the bootstraps argument: by the nature of our society, there will always be a proletariat class and a bourgeois class. This is simply because we live in a capitalist, classist society and capitalism relies on class to function. Like any other classist society, there will always be a serf, slave, peon, plebian, proletarian, or otherwise lower class, no matter how much said class struggles. Yes, you can point to me examples of people like Abraham Lincoln finding success and such, but the simple truth is, not everybody is going to get to become the president, or the CEO of Wal Mart, no matter how hard they work. As I said earlier, in capitalist society, there will always need to be people who sell their labor, just as there will need to be people who use said labor to create commodities which are then sold. To say that you can become whatever you want with hard work goes against capitalism, doesn't it?

 To say that 30% - 35% of the population are just lazy and not hard working, millions of people mind you, I believe, is quite absurd. Our society is not one of meritocracy, and rather success in it is more about chance than hard work. You have to be lucky enough to be born with good genetics to a good family with good wealth in a good environment with good opportunities, good education, good people, good government, good infrastructure, and so on. And if you're not, well have fun struggling your entire life. But don't worry, the system is totally fair.

There are many means by which capitalists exploit others. The most prominent one that comes to mind is the problems of surplus value in a capitalist society. This is where the problems of wage slavery mainly stem from. Wikipedia, although it scratches only the tip of the iceberg, has a good explanation for this phenomena:

Imagine a worker who is hired for an hour and paid $10. Once in the capitalist's employ, the capitalist can have him operate a boot-making machine with which the worker produces $10 worth of work every fifteen minutes. Every hour, the capitalist receives $40 worth of work and only pays the worker $10, capturing the remaining $30 as gross revenue. Once the capitalist has deducted fixed and variable operating costs of (say) $20 (leather, depreciation of the machine, etc.), he is left with $10. Thus, for an outlay of capital of $30, the capitalist obtains a surplus value of $10; his capital has not only been replaced by the operation, but also has increased by $10.

For further reading I would highly recommend to you Karl Marx's short pamphlet meant for workers, Wage Labor and Capital, as he also describes the problems with wage in capitalist societies:

The labourer receives means of subsistence in exchange for his labour-power; the capitalist receives, in exchange for his means of subsistence, labour, the productive activity of the labourer, the creative force by which the worker not only replaces what he consumes, but also gives to the accumulated labour a greater value than it previously possessed. The labourer gets from the capitalist a portion of the existing means of subsistence. For what purpose do these means of subsistence serve him? For immediate consumption. But as soon as I consume means of subsistence, they are irrevocably lost to me, unless I employ the time during which these means sustain my life in producing new means of subsistence, in creating by my labour new values in place of the values lost in consumption. But it is just this noble reproductive power that the labourer surrenders to the capitalist in exchange for means of subsistence received. Consequently, he has lost it for himself.

Let us take an example. For one shilling a labourer works all day long in the fields of a farmer, to whom he thus secures a return of two shillings. The farmer not only receives the replaced value which he has given to the day labourer, he has doubled it. Therefore, he has consumed the one shilling that he gave to the day labourer in a fruitful, productive manner. For the one shilling he has bought the labour-power of the day-labourer, which creates products of the soil of twice the value, and out of one shilling makes two. The day-labourer, on the contrary, receives in the place of his productive force, whose results he has just surrendered to the farmer, one shilling, which he exchanges for means of subsistence, which he consumes more or less quickly. The one shilling has therefore been consumed in a double manner – reproductively for the capitalist, for it has been exchanged for labour-power, which brought forth two shillings; unproductively for the worker, for it has been exchanged for means of subsistence which are lost for ever, and whose value he can obtain again only by repeating the same exchange with the farmer. Capital therefore presupposes wage-labour; wage-labour presupposes capital. They condition each other; each brings the other into existence.

There is also the issue of capitalism being shit at distribution. Empty homes outnumber homeless people 6 to 1. We have the means of ending hunger and most disease, global warming, and homelessness, but It is simply not profitable, nor does it benefit mutual class interest, to show humanity. This is certainly a problem, no? You could say, it's certainly an obstacle for people affected by these statistics, from reaching success.

Another issue and obstacle of the capitalist society is alienation. Alienation occurs as a direct result of the capitalist relationship between the bourgeoisie, the means of production, and the proletarian. Alienation will eventually worsen, as it has already, due to the immiseration thesis.

Then there is the issue of exploitation and oppression through the State. For this I'd recommend you read Chapter 1 of Lenin's The State and Revolution.

Here is a quote by Engels from his work, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State that explains what the State is through a Marxist interpretation:

The state is, therefore, by no means a power forced on society from without; just as little is it 'the reality of the ethical idea', 'the image and reality of reason', as Hegel maintains. Rather, it is a product of society at a certain stage of development; it is the admission that this society has become entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, that it has split into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to dispel. But in order that these antagonisms, these classes with conflicting economic interests, might not consume themselves and society in fruitless struggle, it became necessary to have a power, seemingly standing above society, that would alleviate the conflict and keep it within the bounds of 'order'; and this power, arisen out of society but placing itself above it, and alienating itself more and more from it, is the state.

You can debase it as 'shadowy systems' or whatever you want, but the simple matter is, the State exists for the bourgeoisie to oppress the proletariat. The State has always been present in every type of society in some form or another.

Speaking of Lenin, there's also the imperialism perpetuated by the bourgeoisie which is yet another form of exploitation and obstacle for people who want to reconcile their want of a good life which the reality of their shitty exported American capitalist society.

That's all I'm going to say I think, because then I'd be delving more into a critique of capitalism as a whole as opposed to exposing the exploitation inherent in capitalist societies which disenfranchise workers and common peoples. I know I gave a lot of links, but honestly, if you want a communist critique of capitalism, with a complete disregard to steves retarded b8, the best thing to do is study. Not study the works of Fazz, bust study the works of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. Though as an introduction, perhaps a more familiar face than Marx is Albert Einstein, who raises several good points about socialism in his short essay, Why Socialism?

Well, let's get down to refuting these.

You don't refute the bootstrap argument.You disregard people who actually did so without giving a reason, and then point out that not everyone will succeed, which is true, since not everyone will work hard enough. Unless you have a reason to put aside people who have succeeded at this, someone like your own father, for instance, your point is moot.

Yeah, the guy makes 10 dollars profit from organizing everything. Which, given that he's organized the whole thing and is himself laboring in that regard, seems very fair. Plus, he's actually putting his own capital at risk, something the worker isn't doing. I'd say he should be making more profit, as there's no incentive for him to invest his money and risk it as he's making nothing more than he would if he just worked making shoes for someone else.

Yeah, it's a flaw of pure Capitalism. I think it's a fairly good argument against the libertarian type argument, which is why I'd lean closer to a more Keynesian form of economics personally, so that issue can be dealt with. This flaw is actually quite similar to the flaw in Communism where the lack of a price mechanism leads to things like food shortages, which have plagued every Communist society for that reason. Nothing's perfect, I suppose. It's strange, there's quite a few essays on the necessity of profit for any economic system. I always found those things inane and pointless, thinking profit's necessity was self-evident, but they do come quite in handy when refuting Communism, so that's cool.

We've had Capitalism for quite some time, and alienation doesn't seem to have been a serious issue. Do you have any evidence that alienation will worsen as we've never seen it do so, or...?

Read it, Lenin criticizes the state for being oppressive, before asking for the creation of a "special coercive force" to oppress people. Hypocritical to say the least. You continue to argue for the state, as if not realizing on an organized level Lenin is calling for the same.

The Imperialist point is drivel, as you yourself have admitted to be pro-Imperialist and that communists like Mao were Imperialist.

Well, that wraps up all your points in a pretty pink bow, then. It's fairly clear you're just parroting the opinions of men too long dead to have been convinced by the many critiques to their arguments without understanding them, but whatever. Anyhow, seeing as I presume thanks to AzBaz you've abandoned Islam as your argument for being Muslim was easily defeated, I'll presume until further notice this has ended your time as a Communist. Feel free to ignore this post if you don't care about evidence and instead just want a cause to die for, although if it's that I'd be happy to suggest better causes.

>You don't refute the bootstrap argument.You disregard people who actually did so without giving a reason, and then point out that not everyone will succeed, which is true, since not everyone will work hard enough. Unless you have a reason to put aside people who have succeeded at this, someone like your own father, for instance, your point is moot.

Uh, I don't disregard class mobility, and I did refute the bootstrap argument.

You have no evidence to support laziness as the key factor for why proletarians are not CEOs or presidents. 

>Yeah, the guy makes 10 dollars profit from organizing everything. Which, given that he's organized the whole thing and is himself laboring in that regard, seems very fair. Plus, he's actually putting his own capital at risk, something the worker isn't doing. I'd say he should be making more profit, as there's no incentive for him to invest his money and risk it as he's making nothing more than he would if he just worked making shoes for someone else.

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/001/010/193/5d6.jpg

No, you're misunderstanding what surplus value is. Surplus value is what's left after all deductions, including the capitalist's own wage. It's not fair for the capitalist to take the surplus for himself, thus, especially when you consider that Surplus Value is created by the worker. Thus, the worker should be given the Surplus Value..

I highly recommend you watch this lecture which explains what Surplus Value is and the problems associated with it for workers and their bosses.

>Read it, Lenin criticizes the state for being oppressive, before asking for the creation of a "special coercive force" to oppress people. Hypocritical to say the least. You continue to argue for the state, as if not realizing on an organized level Lenin is calling for the same.

I agree with Lenin, I am not an anarchist, I believe that workers should seize the state and use it to oppress the bourgeoisie.

As Mao puts it,

"Classes struggle, some classes triumph, others are eliminated. Such is history; such is the history of civilization for thousands of years. To interpret history from this viewpoint is historical materialism; standing in opposition to this viewpoint is historical idealism."

Later on, one of the main tenets of communism is that the State will wither away.

>Yeah, it's a flaw of pure Capitalism. I think it's a fairly good argument against the libertarian type argument, which is why I'd lean closer to a more Keynesian form of economics personally, so that issue can be dealt with. 

I'm glad we can at least agree on this, well sort of, because as I said earlier social democracy does not solve the problems of capitalism nor capitalist distribution. The only way to solve the contradictions of class and capitalism is for the workers to rise up and usurp the means of production. This is because capitalist societies produce for market exchange, not necessity.

>This flaw is actually quite similar to the flaw in Communism where the lack of a price mechanism leads to things like food shortages, which have plagued every Communist society for that reason

Perhaps you could explain this? I'm not sure what the shittiness of capitalist distribution has to do with socialist distribution.

>The Imperialist point is drivel, as you yourself have admitted to be pro-Imperialist and that communists like Mao were Imperialist.

First, imperialism in the Marxist context is not necessarily always invading another country. Let’s say we have 2 countries, Country A and Country B. The material conditions of Country B are not as developed as Country A. Should worker unions begin bugging the capitalists of Country A about safer working conditions, extra pay, less hours, and so on, the capitalists of Country A can simply move their factory to Country B. They can then exploit the citizens of Country B more than Country A due to the material conditions not being as advanced.

Ironic you call Mao an imperialist, considering it was he and the Koumintang who fought against Japan's invasion of China. I don’t see how that’s relevant in any case.

>We've had Capitalism for quite some time, and alienation doesn't seem to have been a serious issue. Do you have any evidence that alienation will worsen as we've never seen it do so, or...?

Alienation is more of a dialectical Marxist observation on society as a result of capitalist material conditions than it is something that can be proven with statistics. 

>It's fairly clear you're just parroting the opinions of men too long dead to have been convinced by the many critiques to their arguments without understanding them,

Is this you?

>'ll presume until further notice this has ended your time as a Communist. Feel free to ignore this post if you don't care about evidence and instead just want a cause to die for, although if it's that I'd be happy to suggest better causes.

I doubt you will ever turn me against communism.

Examples of how people have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, like Lincoln and your own father, have been provided. You disregard these when you say most people can't, without providing an explanation for why. Unless you can explain how some people can pull themselves up from a really shitty situation yet others don't, the bootstraps argument stands.

Yeah, the man has provided 30 dollars, and he's making a profit off that money. If the machine had broken down and the shoes being made ruined, the man would've lost 30 dollars while the worker would've made 10 dollars either way. The worker takes no risk, and has a guaranteed wage, the owner does not. How is that exploitation if the worker is guaranteed a profit yet the owner is not?

So it's agreed Lenin is a hypocrite for criticizing the state for being oppressive while arguing for an oppressive state. 

Mao invaded a country to support a violent, undemocratic and thus against the will of the people uprising in the Korean war. That's imperialism. The US stopped him, an anti-Imperialist move. The US' actions there don't negate their other examples of Imperialist behavior, just as Mao's defense of China doesn't negate his other actions.

So Alienation isn't a fact, it's instead something Marx felt something without any evidence, thus it's not an argument.

No, a larger brain doesn't mean smarter.

Time will tell.

I really can't tell if this is b8 or not. On one hand, you could just be talking about Marxism without understanding basic concepts of it, or on the other hand you could just be wanting to drive me on. Because I don't know I'm going to keep my answers brief. Sorry if they are less than satisfactory for you. But if you truly care to learn I have provided the appropriate resources and you can delve through that. 

I did talk about class mobility. This is specifically what I had to say about it:

To clarify, I do not believe that you cannot become successful through hard work. I think that, especially for people who aren't meant to be, there are quite many obstacles inherent in capitalist societies that keep lower class people from transitioning to higher classes and thus better lives. It is therefore my belief that the bootstraps argument is a shit one because it is not true to the reality of our society, and instead is more representative of an idealist meritocractic society as seen through the lenses of privilaged people who don't have to work as hard as disenfranchised or poor people in order to achieve the same success. In essence, yeah, I'm sure it's easy for you to say why not just pull yourself up by your own bootstraps you lazy moocher, if only you worked hard enough you'd be the next Abraham Lincoln! But this viewpoint is simply a bullshit idealist one, again, not true to our society, only parroted by people benefiting from the State (which I will take about later on).

>Yeah, the man has provided 30 dollars, and he's making a profit off that money. If the machine had broken down and the shoes being made ruined, the man would've lost 30 dollars while the worker would've made 10 dollars either way. The worker takes no risk, and has a guaranteed wage, the owner does not. How is that exploitation if the worker is guaranteed a profit yet the owner is not?

The workers do not need the owner; the owner needs the workers. The workers could very well democratically organize a factory or burger joint for instance amongst themselves and distribute the profit amongst themselves fairly. The boss, could not however. They do not need the boss. Workers are further entitled to value they create. The boss is not entitled to value he did not create. People are not entitled to things they do not create.

>So it's agreed Lenin is a hypocrite for criticizing the state for being oppressive while arguing for an oppressive state. 

This is you simply not understanding what a State is, or the point of it.

Even anarchists when criticizing communists don't say this because they at least understand what a State is and how it's functioned materialistically.

>Mao invaded a country to support a violent, undemocratic and thus against the will of the people uprising in the Korean war. That's imperialism. The US stopped him, an anti-Imperialist move. The US' actions there don't negate their other examples of Imperialist behavior, just as Mao's defense of China doesn't negate his other actions.

A small correction here: Kim il Sung invaded South Korea. Later on China and the USSR supported NK and America & Co. supported SK. It very much became another Cold War proxy war. I wouldn't say Mao Zedong is at fault for wanting to support his communist comrades, just as I wouldn't say the U.S. are at fault for supporting their bourgeois brothers. (well, insofar as the context of real world situations goes...) If you want to point fingers and call people imperialists, blame Kim il Sung.

>So Alienation isn't a fact, it's instead something Marx felt something without any evidence, thus it's not an argument.

This is you simply not understanding what alienation is.

You can argue that Marx's theories of alienation aren't true, just as you could argue that Marx's theories on the fetishism of commodities or Marx's theories on historical materialism or Marx's labor theory of Value aren't true. You would need stronger substance to your arguments however.

>Time will tell.

To that, I will respond with a quote from Lenin:

No mercy for these enemies of the people, the enemies of socialism, the enemies of the working people! War to the death against the rich and their hangers-on, the bourgeois intellectuals; war on the rogues, the idlers and the rowdies!

Again, you're not explaining how some people can pull themselves up by the bootstraps from shitty situations. You say multiple times in that paragraph that it's bullshit, but that's not an argument for it, you're not explaining or arguing, you're just pushing it aside. You vaguely reference people who "aren't meant to be", as if there's some divine fate deciding who will be wealthy, but you never explain how if, for example, your father can pull himself up through hard work, others can't.

The worker does need the owner. Without the owner, there's no money to be used to buy the machines and pay the operating expenses, and thus the worker is jobless. With no starting capital being invested, you have nothing. For someone so adamant that I'm not understanding what you're staying, you don't seem to understand the factors of production. Capital is just as important as labour.

There's no argument there, you just say I'm not understanding, which I am. You've said yourself workers should use the state to oppress people, so yeah, criticizing the state for oppressing people is hypocritical.

Strange, because you have in the past blamed America for supporting their brothers and fighting in Vietnam and Korea, but now you say they're not at fault. Anyhow, Kim invaded after being promised by Mao reinforcements if necessary, so Mao is definitely at fault. Mao pledged support if needed to an armed and violent revolution.

You can once again say I don't understand what it is, but I do. I asked for evidence of it, and all you said was that Marx believed it existed, which is anecdotal evidence and useless. Whilst you seem to say I don't understand all these topics, which I clearly do, you seem to use that as an excuse to not provide any evidence.

Edit: Sorry, it seems I left out a chunk of your argument a step back, this bit.

>Yeah, it's a flaw of pure Capitalism. I think it's a fairly good argument against the libertarian type argument, which is why I'd lean closer to a more Keynesian form of economics personally, so that issue can be dealt with. 

I'm glad we can at least agree on this, well sort of, because as I said earlier social democracy does not solve the problems of capitalism nor capitalist distribution. The only way to solve the contradictions of class and capitalism is for the workers to rise up and usurp the means of production. This is because capitalist societies produce for market exchange, not necessity.

>This flaw is actually quite similar to the flaw in Communism where the lack of a price mechanism leads to things like food shortages, which have plagued every Communist society for that reason

Perhaps you could explain this? I'm not sure what the shittiness of capitalist distribution has to do with socialist distribution.

In regard to the former, we can quite easily solve this issue through Keynesian economics, as I've already said. Government spending in times of economic recession can allow people to buy up the excess product, such as all the housing for the homeless, increasing demand for them and thus increasing demand for labour, thus increasing wages, which can then be taxed to provide funds for helping out in future recessionary periods.

In regard to the latter, I'm pointing out how pure capitalism has faults and thus complete libertarianism is a stupid place to be, while Communism also has flaws and thus is equally stupid if not more so. Unless you're confused as to how Communism fails to provide price signals, which would be fairly laughable after all you've said about how I don't understand Communism well enough.

Besides the bits on class mobility (which I don't see how I have not already answered), Keynesian economics helping in times of recession, and Mao Zedong's alleged imperialism (which isn't rather relevant) all of your arguments can be answered through basic understanding of Marx and Lenin...

Not a response, that. Zedong's Imperialism is relevant as you claimed that was a fault of Capitalism alone rather than both Communism and Capitalism, so that entire point is drivel you shouldn't have brought up, you've yet to poke any holes in Keynesian theory, so that dismisses many of your complaints about capitalism, and you're left without really any points against Capitalism I haven't easily refuted.

You've clearly been backed into a corner where you don't have sources to link to and don't have the understanding to refute what I'm saying, so you're just waving your hands about. You fail to provide any rebuttal, and I've already solved every issue you've put forward with Capitalism, while you just shrugged in confusion at my single criticism of Communism put forward, of which I have many more.

At this point, seeing as in our conversations here I've seen you put forward sources that you claimed argued for something before upon reading them I learned they have the opposite, you've shown little understanding of the topics you've argued and I honestly don't believe you have an understanding of basic economics, let alone topics like Marxism. It seems you just regurgitate points and cower at their refutations, before linking sources you don't understand. 

I just hope you and I never discuss Marxism again.

We didn't discuss it. You repeated things you heard or read from Communist websites without fully understanding them, I refuted them. Thanks to this, anyhow, your ideology as of now has been fairly easily and soundly refuted, but just like with your Muslim heritage, do continue to hold on to them desperately despite all rationality.

Someone told me once, just because someone says something, it doesn't make it true.

You're right, it doesn't make it true. Everything you've been told about communism doesn't make it true. My refutations make it false, though.

http://i.imgur.com/D68fG3W.jpg

In all seriousness, maybe someday if you ever get the chance, I'd highly recommend you pick up The German Ideology which would refute your points on the worker-boss relationship. The NEP imposed by Lenin would also do this, though you would need an understanding of dialectical history to understand its full significance, hence, The German Ideology. Marx's 1844 essays and Capital should refute your points on alienation. 

You imply you've already read The State and Revolution, so if you haven't already I'd read Engels work in Origins, else I assume your ignorance on the State is simply you deliberately being not smart. 

I feel I have more productive things to do than rehash Communism 101, especially not with a passive aggressive, b8ing, insulting reactionary like yourself.

 I'd provide links to all the works I cited, but links are for nonintellectual people I guess?

Another reference to a source I doubt you understand. Seeing as you're unable to summarize the points made due to not understanding them, and I've already wasted the time reading through many of your sources to find either you've lied or simply not understood what they were about, or they're easily disproven.

You've already done so a while back, listing a good twenty links. I went through literally all of them and showed how they were wrong, or how you didn't understand what they were saying and they actually served the opposite response. I'd recommend you understand your own sources before citing them from now on, and stop trying to hide behind the works of other people and actually make arguments yourself. Of course, you'd have to understand the sources to make arguments from them, so whatever.

When that occurred, the point of me posting all those links then wasn't necessarily to advance my central position (Mao didn't kill 60 million people) it was to give voice to a behavior of yours that would forever keep us at impasse (you just glancing at my sources and saying they are biased). Sorry for the confusion.

Even though it turned out you didn't understand many of your own sources, as they disagreed with you, showing how little you understand on the topics.

>The workers could very well democratically organize a factory or burger joint for instance amongst themselves and distribute the profit amongst themselves fairly. The boss, could not however

What is it about capitalism that's specifically stopping them from doing this? A business can be run however the owners want. I'm not sure how practical it would be to have no chain of leadership, but if a bunch of people want to split up ownership and responsibility than they can.

This already pretty much sounds like a family business honestly, though of course once it expands it's still going to require a couple people specifically with the responsibility of keeping equipment running and the building in repair, making orders, handling hiring, taxes, insurance and payroll, shipping, marketing and defusing drama.

Managing even a small business or organization is a lot more work and responsibility than you seem to think and requires putting in more hours. I'm not sure what the issue is with the person doing most of the work receiving more than the people who just want to show up, do their jobs and go home without stressing about any of that. But again, there's nothing preventing anyone from trying out the multi-equal owner thing.

Fuck off you harlot, there's no pickings to be had for you here. 'Tis mine.

I was going to reply yesterday but fuck, this debate is boring and too much to wade through.

I was hoping someone would start something up about the suicide text girl but as always CYS brings only disappointment.

That story happened ages ago, I saw it on Youtube, I no longer care.

So did this lame debate. Also, Marx died a long time ago just FYI

But really, I'm mostly just disappointed in Malk. Why hasn't he been in here feverishly fapping about Stalin? (while shitting to sustain his boner)

Also you edit blocked me before I could add 'legal liability' to the list of owner/manager responsibilities, which is a huge one. I would never take a job where I could be the one sued into oblivion because somebody else pretended to slip.

A family business situation, in which the owner is also the worker, is what's known as the 'petty-bourgeoisie' in Marxist conversation.

When I or other communists talk about workers usurping the means of production, what this really means is workers managing their workpalce democratically amongst themselves. This means that workers, as opposed to their boss, would take in the surplus value and decide who gets each portion fairly as a team. They would also democratically assign one another jobs in the workplace, including administrative positions, such as the ones you listed.

>What is it about capitalism that's specifically stopping them from doing this?

The bourgeoisie.

Interesting... When I get the time I'll see if I can work through the links you've sent. I don't normally delve into political ideas, only when I debate as part of a competition or something, so I normally just look at the basic 'cookie-cutter' flaws to bring up if communism or capitalism (and anything in between, don't really need to prepare for fascism) is ever dealt with in a topic. Unfortunately(?), debates normally don't stray near said subject matter.

I think that, if we continue to discuss the inherent discrimination of 'the system' - and its effect on class disparity - these are the observations and inferences I have made (so far).

1. There is an emphasis on the idea of people in worse off situations finding it improbable to advance further into society due to the nature of capitalism relying on a workforce. This nature conversely results in exploitation by those in power, in the form of greed - leading to mark-up, alienation, exploitation using the state, imperialism and the withholding of resources ~> oppression in the form of wage slavery, increasing the gap between the rich and the working class, control of the work force using the state, oppression of other peoples as a result of imperialist/expansionist actions, and general misuse of the resources we have. 

2. The last bit with Einstein is interesting, since it argues that - instead of the usual conjecture of capitalism encouraging innovation - unrestrained competition between capitalists has the ramification of causing unnecessary depressions in the economy, strengthening attitudes of self-interest to the extent that selfishness prevails over cooperation ~> hindering human creativity, wastage of labour and economic anarchy. Einstein's solution is a planned economy made and enforced by society to equally distribute resources and labour - which will solve the systemic flaws of capitalism which "cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society". I needed the help of Wikipedia for this one, since it's 1:45am and thinking right now really hurts.

3. That 'easily' progressing in society should be inherently 'right', and that obstacles in the capitalist system are inherently 'wrong'. This is because, the class disparity between the rich and the poor/working class will widen due to said obstacles - which is caused by inequity in the system.

4. That every employer (or anyone else in a position along the lines of being an employer) is, in this day and age, able to enforce wage slavery etc. etc. on their employed.

 

These are my replies to each observation/inference I have made. 

1. The points made here are strong, and with my current knowledge I have nothing to directly rebut your substantive. What I would do, if this was on the spot, would be to question the relevance of these claims to our modern age. Specifically, since there are now so many different 'unorthodox' methods of earning money, such as the creation of a business, and the scope of what one can do to progress in society is larger, is the hold of the employer on the employed so strong - to the point that it reflects the thesis of Marx, Engels etc, - that a case can be made for systemic discrimination? I would use a comparison point, between 'Industrial Revolution England' and today's MEDCs, to show that unlike those bygone days - said scope does limit the effect of an employer's exploitation of the employed. This is applied to the points on mark-up/wage slavery, alienation, and exploitation of the workforce by the state.

When it comes to imperialism and distribution, I'd ask for the opposition's (your) model by which you'd solve these two issues. From what I've seen so far, application of communism has led to the creation of a totalitarian state - not unlike a fascist nation such as Nazi Germany - and said totalitarian states require its population to rely solely on the state and hate its enemies to avoid civil unrest and eventual collapse (got that from Cowie - a respected historian, forgot his first name). The current 'successful' model of the totalitarian state probably goes to North Korea, since they do rely upon the complete brainwashing of their people and their full cooperation to barely survive. The problems that arise from trying to control and dictate what goes where, like in the case of 'applied communism', will remain. Einstein himself said so in Why Socialism?

2. Again, I'll ask for a model. If none is given, I'll loop back to 1. and argue that completely changing from capitalism will strengthen everyone's reliance on the state - leading to totalitarian governments - and make everything worse. Also, a planned economy would require a system reminiscent (or actually is just) democracy. I think it was Aristotle that said democracy/mob rule is ineffective at getting anything done the larger a community becomes, since it all becomes a mess of conflicting ideas and wants. Anyway, a model would be great if we were to follow Einstein's idea.

3. I could make the case that, in order to become the CEO or whatever, one has to actually prove themselves to be suitable for the job. If not, the competition from more able people, be it from the 'underclassmen' or other CEOs/whatevers, will replace you. Until you can disprove my first statement in 1., I will assert that the system right now is, in this sense, fair.

4. Refer back to first part of 1.

 

In the end, I've probably overlooked some key point that tears apart the case I have now. Or I've misinterpreted something that invalidates what I wrote. If not, yippee. If that first part of 1. is addressed, then we can move onto the "fun" part. And that's figuring out how to solve things (AKA, your model).

 

P.S. Would it have been better if I narrowed down structural discrimination to systemic discrimination? That way, I wouldn't have to deal with the flaws of capitalism and all of *this*. Actually, it probably would just loop back...

[EDIT] Bolded is the key part of what I'm saying. That and 'provide a model' so we can realistically fix things - or else all this talk is moot and we can't do something about it (if you manage to explain why the bolded bit in 1. isn't the case).

Oh and I'll link that bolded bit of 1. back to the whole 'inequity and inequality thing' in th first place, and say that therefore there isn't an inequity in the status quo due to said scope.

For the most part, I don't see the difference between Industrial England and MEDCs, you're going to have to elaborate on what you mean by this for me, I don't understand why we can't apply Marx's theories on today's society or what has really changed since then in general. Most of Marx's critiques of the exploitation inherent in capitalism are still true. While it is also true that it has been much time since Marx's, and many leaps and bounds have been made for workers through labor unions, strikes, and so on, I mean... we still live under capitalist system. Our society, just as it was in Industrial England, is still fundamentally that of a capitalist one. Thus most of Marx's theories and larger critiques, if not all, can be applied to our world today. 

marx was completely right about everything

cough cough, uh, I hope this answered your question? Honestly I'm just not sure what exactly you're talking about that has changed since Marx's time that would render his critiques and theories of society obsolete.

What might help you is this series on youtube about Marx's LTV.

Okay you're going to definitely have to lose the view that in application communism = fascism. This won't be too hard, considering communism and fascism are absolutely fucking nothing alike and under the most basic scrutiny any simpleton can see the differences in a communist society and a Nazi society.

But if we're talking about application, this gets confusing, because you're going to have to understand that communism, by the definitions set forth by Engels and Marx, i.e. a classless moneyles stateless society, has never been achieved. While socialism has, it varies. When it comes to imperialism, the answer is simple, just don't do it and fight the powers that do (this is one of the main struggles communists have with powers like America that frequently engage in imperialism). However when it comes to distribution, this gets tricky because you will have to start studying specific examples of socialist societies and their respective schools of thought -- the Bolsheviks and the Maoists and the Hoaxhists went about distribution, specifically socialism, in different ways for instance. But generally we can see the effects of people, such as Castro's, Stalin's, and Mao's programs on society and citizens -- the increased literacy rate, increased birth rate, increased food production, increased lifespan, better economy, better healthcare, better education, mass industrialization, leaps in societal gains such as women's rights, and so on. Especially, the bounds created by socialist policies become even greater in scope when you compare the lifestyles of each country before revolution.

Of course, I'm making generalized statements about each country and the links I provide only really scratch the surface. One must perform much more rigorous study to understand distribution under varying socialist societies. However, the point is, unlike the picture reactionaries and the enemies of the people wish to paint, (U.S. state agencies have provided assistance to those with a negative attitude to Maoism (and communism in general) throughout the post-war period. For example, the veteran historian of Maoism Roderick MacFarquhar edited The China Quarterly in the 1960s. This magazine published allegations about massive famine deaths that have been quoted ever since. It later emerged that this journal received money from a CIA front organisation, as MacFarquhar admitted in a recent letter to The London Review of Books. (Roderick MacFarquhar states that he did not know the money was coming from the CIA while he was editing The China Quarterly.) socialist societies are not ones in which no societal progress have been made and everybody's poor and shitty and hungry and oppressed and enslaved and so on. The truth is far from this.

Considering North Korea abandoned achieving socialism long ago in favor of Juche (which is basically Korean ethno-superiority with a dash of socialist ideals), bringing them up is irrelevant at this point.

Communists are inherently authoritarian by nature. Communists will use the State, or to give a basic definition of it, the mechanisms by which the dominant class in any given classist society oppresses the lower class (so for instance secret police would count as the arms of the State) to snuff out opposition such as counter-revolutionaries, social-chavunists, bourgeoisie, reactionaries, social-imperialists, and so on so forth, who only wish to destroy the society.

As Mao puts it, 

After the enemies with guns have been wiped out, there will still be enemies without guns; they are bound to struggle desperately against us, and we must never regard these enemies lightly. If we do nor now raise and understand the problem in this way, we shall commit the gravest mistakes.

Capitalists will do the same, they will silence the opposition to their rule, as they have in the past.

As a specific critique to the idea that communist application = totalitarianism, here is a good critique of this.

The concept of totalitarianism is itself a false concept, invented in the contemporary era for the purpose of confining social analysis and critique within the horizon of so-called liberal, democratic, and insurmountable (the "end of history") capitalism. The move here is to confine the choice to that between liberal capitalism or totalitarianism and by that means preclude both radicalizing the critique of capitalism and defining a choice between capitalism and socialism. Undoubtedly, the critique of the experiences of undemocratic really existing socialism is necessary if one wants to move forward in the critique of capitalism and the definition of the necessary practices to construct the socialist alternative. However, the sterile concept of totalitarianism is of no use in making this critique. Such a critique is based on other considerations that the propagandists of liberalism ignore in principle.

-Samir Amin

It's a good thing socialism is not in conflict with democracy. In fact, socialism is a form of economic democracy: it is the freeing of the proletariat from the bonds of their masters. In terms of political democracy, Lenin has good theories on democratic centralism though again one must understand that democracy in socialist societies has not always been carried out the same way.

I hope this answers most of your questions.

For the whole totalitarianism thing, I think I'll define it first so that I can more clearly explain my point.

Totalitarian regime = Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed.

My point about how communism and fascism, when attempted to be put into practice as a structure of government, is that both end up relying solely upon the state to control and order how everything works in order to stop itself from collapsing under civil unrest and revolt.

As I understand, and as you said, "Communists are inherently authoritarian... [and] will use the State (the mechanisms by which the dominant class in any given classist society oppresses the lower class)... to snuff out opposition such as counter-revolutionaries etc. etc.".

To achieve said political dominance via the crushing of an opposition, the full support from the economy and society are required. This in turn erodes autonomy of the people by encouraging/enforcing their dependence on the State, which therefore creates a totalitarian regime. That doesn't mean a dictatorial government is inherently evil/bad, I personally believe that a benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government. The problem with dictatorships, be it if they begin as benevolent ones or not, is that sooner or later corruption will eat away at the whole system ~> harming the lives of the people. Mao may have improved China during his rule, but if we look at the political, social and environmental landscape it is in now we can see the failures of maintaining that balance of autonomy and control. Economy's looking good though lol. Some guy, forgot his name, made the quote "Absolute power, corrupts absolutely." It also asserts that great men are almost always bad men (at a moral level). You can see that in both Stalin, Mao, Hitler...

That leads on to my observation that, when governments have tried to achieve communism, they always end up pursuing a path that swerves away from the ideal communist idea of being stateless and do the contrary. Therefore both fascism and communism, when attempted to be put into place at a systemic/government level, end up being very similar due to both's reliance on a people that support the State fully. This leads to the destruction of discourse. I mentioned, a while ago, the whole book burning situation as an example of both extremes being similar in this way.Obviously, at a 'political idea' level both states are extremely fundamentally different. 

In fact, you can see the imperialist/expansionist nature of totalitarian governments at work in both ends of the spectrum during the lead-up to WWII. Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia made the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact, in which they agreed to dividing up Eastern Europe after their victory. It also negated the French-Soviet treaty, allowing both nations to retaliate back at France and her allies if Germany (or Russia) was attacked. Naturally, Hitler backstabbed the Russians in 1941 when he invaded - perhaps due to the difference in political ideals but probably more due to his hunger for Lebensraum. My point is, again, the failed application of communism has devolved into totalitarianism which is not so dissimilar from the totalitarian nature of a fascist state. Here's a comic made in 1939, which summed up the irony of the situation. Note the dead 'Poland' lying between the two.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/e1/f8/45/e1f845223bd3c97bc65179c54309676d.jpg

Anyway, maybe that made my position on the whole fascism/communism = totalitarianism thing clearer.

[EDIT] To avoid confusion, I'm not using Stalin's Russia as an example of a communist country. I'm using it as an example of a totalitarian regime that was created with communism in mind - which failed to become a communist country like all the other attempts at becoming one.

 

On the point on whether or not Marx's observation of the economy is still relevant or not, I wanted to know why his theories are still applicable when globalism and capitalism and consumerism has reached a point where, if you had the moxie, ingenuity and(or) the perseverance to succeed, you can sell your services/goods to practically anyone. Thus, in this day and age no one is bound to their caste, and the hold of the upper class over the lower class is loosened and class disparities are more easily bridged. Today's system is fundamentally capitalist, like during the era of Industrial England, but the sheer scope of today's capitalism has led to globalism and consumerism - which balances the playing field for anyone who wants to move up in the world. Back to the whole bootstraps argument, that's why I don't think it can be so easily dismissed by the old theories and observations of Marx and the others. Again, maybe there is something there that explains why, but so far I haven't seen it.

>To achieve said political dominance via the crushing of an opposition, the full support from the economy and society are required.

No, not at all. The people opposed to socialist control over the state will be displeased in a socialist society, just as the people opposed to capitalist control over the state will be displeased in a capitalist society.

Police can and do succeed in their crushing of leftist opposition, without the approval of everyone just as they have and continue to do so.

>This in turn erodes autonomy of the people by encouraging/enforcing their dependence on the State, which therefore creates a totalitarian regime. That doesn't mean a dictatorial government is inherently evil/bad, I personally believe that a benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government. The problem with dictatorships, be it if they begin as benevolent ones or not, is that sooner or later corruption will eat away at the whole system ~> harming the lives of the people. Mao may have improved China during his rule, but if we look at the political, social and environmental landscape it is in now we can see the failures of maintaining that balance of autonomy and control. Economy's looking good though lol. Some guy, forgot his name, made the quote "Absolute power, corrupts absolutely." It also asserts that great men are almost always bad men (at a moral level). You can see that in both Stalin, Mao, Hitler...

So you complain about corruption and revisionism "eating away at the whole system", but when communists attempt to stop corruption and such through the State, this is also a problem for you?

There is a problem when you have people and groups within socialist societies wishing and attempting to bring down the society from within. When capitalists use police to protect their capitalist institutions, such as private property, so too must communists use the State to protect their socialist institutions. A State is necessary to protect the proletariat dominance over counterrevolutionaries and their ilk in a socialist society, just as a State is necessary to protect capitalist dominance over proletariat in a capitalist society.

>That leads on to my observation that, when governments have tried to achieve communism, they always end up pursuing a path that swerves away from the ideal communist idea of being stateless and do the contrary. 

We as communists agree that a functioning State is necessary for the transitory period between capitalism and communism so that the country does not regress back into a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Once communism is achieved, the State will wither away, as Lenin writes. So no, in socialist societies the preservation and usage of the State is necessary.

The only leftists that disagree with this outlook are anarchists as far as I know.

The State should not be thought of as something that communists in power or capitalists in power conjure up; it is the instrument any dominant class in any given classist society uses to subjugate the other and remain in power. It will remain so long as classism remains.

>In fact, you can see the imperialist/expansionist nature of totalitarian governments at work in both ends of the spectrum during the lead-up to WWII. Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia made the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact, in which they agreed to dividing up Eastern Europe after their victory. It also negated the French-Soviet treaty, allowing both nations to retaliate back at France and her allies if Germany (or Russia) was attacked. Naturally, Hitler backstabbed the Russians in 1941 when he invaded - perhaps due to the difference in political ideals but probably more due to his hunger for Lebensraum. My point is, again, the failed application of communism has devolved into totalitarianism which is not so dissimilar from the totalitarian nature of a fascist state. Here's a comic made in 1939, which summed up the irony of the situation. Note the dead 'Poland' lying between the two.

I find this essay by Grover Furr which refutes the common point 'the USSR invaded Poland alongside Germany' to refute the points you also make here. Essentially, the the main takeaway is:

When Poland had no government, Poland was no longer a state.

What that meant was this: at this point Hitler had nobody with whom to negotiate a cease-fire, or treaty.

Furthermore, the M-R Treaty’s Secret Protocols were void, since they were an agreement about the state of Poland and no state of Poland existed any longer. Unless the Red Army came in to prevent it, there was nothing to prevent the Nazis from coming right up to the Soviet border.

Or -- as we now know they were in fact preparing to do -- Hitler could have formed one or more pro-Nazi states in what had until recently been Eastern Poland. That way Hitler could have had it both ways: claim to the Soviets that he was still adhering to the "spheres of influence" agreement of the M-R Pact while in fact setting up a pro-Nazi, highly militarized fascist Ukrainian nationalist state on the Soviet border.

[...]

1. The Polish government did not declare war on USSR.

2. The Polish Supreme Commander Rydz-Smigly ordered Polish soldiers not to fight the Soviets, though he ordered Polish forces to continue to fight the Germans.

3. The Polish President Ignaz Moscicki, interned in Rumania since Sept. 17, tacitly admitted that Poland no longer had a government.

4. The Romanian government tacitly admitted that Poland no longer had a government.

5. Romania had a military treaty with Poland aimed against the USSR. Rumania did not declare war on the USSR.

6. France did not declare war on the USSR, though it had a mutual defense treaty with Poland.

7. England never demanded that the USSR withdraw its troops from Western Belorussia and Western Ukraine, the parts of the former Polish state occupied by the Red Army after September 17, 1939.

On the contrary, the British government concluded that these territories should not be a part of a future Polish state. Even the Polish government-in-exile agreed!

8. The League of Nations did not determine the USSR had invaded a member state.

Now, I wouldn't necessarily say Grover Furr is the best authority ever on the USSR, but he does make some good points here.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was necessary because, first, war between the Nazis and Russia was quite inevitable given Hitler's distaste for the 'Judeo-Bolsheviks'. The USSR making a pact with the Nazis was necessary in order to buy time and prepare fo the inevitable invasion into their country, especially when you consider the conduct of everyone else, or to be more specific, the enabling and appeasement of Germany in their initial invasions (see: the treatment of Czechoslovakia).

>On the point on whether or not Marx's observation of the economy is still relevant or not, I wanted to know why his theories are still applicable when globalism and capitalism and consumerism has reached a point where, if you had the moxie, ingenuity and(or) the perseverance to succeed, you can sell your services/goods to practically anyone. Thus, in this day and age no one is bound to their caste, and the hold of the upper class over the lower class is loosened and class disparities are more easily bridged. Today's system is fundamentally capitalist, like during the era of Industrial England, but the sheer scope of today's capitalism has led to globalism and consumerism - which balances the playing field for anyone who wants to move up in the world. Back to the whole bootstraps argument, that's why I don't think it can be so easily dismissed by the old theories and observations of Marx and the others. Again, maybe there is something there that explains why, but so far I haven't seen it.

So you're basically saying, Marx's theories are null, because, the market and capitalism in general are larger than before?

>No, not at all. The people opposed to socialist control over the state will be displeased in a socialist society, just as the people opposed to capitalist control over the state will be displeased in a capitalist society.

Are you implying that everyone will be on board with this whole "let's become communist" plan? In which country do you find people so dedicated to socialist control - to the point that the government can just rely on their full support against political opposition? I'm quite certain the majority of people would oppose the shut-down of different avenues of thought. The problem with this assertion is that it's unrealistic. That's why systems that try to pursue communism will rely on interfering with the people's autonomy - since there is no such reality by which they'd have such strong voluntary support. Besides, if said government was so determined to hush up other political ideas - doesn't that indicate that government is not confident in the support of their own people? Wouldn't the full support of the people be shown when they rebuke and deride these political ideas on their own? Doesn't that mean that, yes, they need to interfere with the people's autonomy (free thought, choice etc.) in order to shut-down other political ideas?

>So you complain about corruption and revisionism "eating away at the whole system", but when communists attempt to stop corruption and such through the State, this is also a problem for you?

>Once communism is achieved, the State will wither away, as Lenin writes.

It's more the destruction of autonomy that displeases me most through the communist method of using the State to meet their ends. I'm not saying that corruption is acceptable in either society. But when you mention the use of police and the protection of private property as a form of capitalism and corruption, I can't see why this can be comparable to smothering political opposition - and conversely free thought and expression. One is making sure someone doesn't kill another by fire-bombing their house, you can probably figure out which. I also can't see why one justifies the other. On the whole protection of society via the shut-down of opposing views, that system is totalitarian and, seeing that there is no opposition to their policies, corruption will again seep into the system and thus communism will never be achieved. 

I don't see how this addresses the points I made on how the reliance of the State/system/upper class/whatever will erode autonomy. "My point about how communism and fascism, when attempted to be put into practice as a structure of government, is that both end up relying solely upon the state to control and order how everything works in order to stop itself from collapsing under civil unrest and revolt... Mao may have improved China during his rule, but if we look at the political, social and environmental landscape it is in now we can see the failures of maintaining that balance of autonomy and control. Economy's looking good though lol." I may not have explicitly stated it, but I also pointed out that, even if a system begins with the best intentions, if they are completely centralised eventually corruption (or some other thing) will seep in. Hopefully my position on corruption is helpful to you in some way or another, I don't see how it's relevant.

Yes, perhaps once communism is achieved. But to do so, as I mentioned just then, requires the people in power at the first place wholly resisting human nature - and thus corruption - despite having the power to do what they want in the first place. Maybe the people will revolt, maybe they won't. If they do, I can only see it ending up in anarchy or some other 'system'. If they don't, it'll stay a totalitarian state. Either way, I don't see communism being achieved by just the support of the people alone - refer back to my first reply.

>I find this essay by Grover Furr which refutes the common point 'the USSR invaded Poland alongside Germany' to refute the points you also make here. Essentially, the the main takeaway is:

My point wasn't about the USSR invaded Poland alongside Hitler, although it may seem that way in the comic. I was comparing Stalin's Russia with Nazi Germany as both ended up becoming similar in their aggression towards other nations - a hallmark feature of totalitarian states - and thus becoming instigators and contributing to WWII. The key point I made was, despite the political ideas on which both were founded, at that point Russia was totalitarian - since it was able to 'put aside their differences' despite the obvious hatred between the two. This will, of course, inevitably end in the breaking of the treaty by either side. I was using Stalin's Russia to demonstrate the similarities between itself and Nazi Germany, and their expansionist nature due to their totalitarian system (shown when, in the treaty, they agreed to cutting up Eastern Europe after they've won the impending conflict). I don't see how Grover Furr refutes my points on the whole totalitarianism thing.

Also, the League of Nations were a bunch of pussyfooting countries that got nothing done to prevent the war - which led to the adoption of appeasement as a method of preserving the peace with Germany and the other aggressors. After WWI, there were strong sentiments to never have another war - which is why noone dared to declare war on Russia to prevent things from escalating further (or Germany until Britain had enough). They clutched onto the appeasement policy till the very end.

>So you're basically saying, Marx's theories are null, because, the market and capitalism in general are larger than before?

Exactly what I said in the post above yours.

I also still haven't seen a model that would fix the supposed inequity up. Unless one is offered I can't really say whether or not the status quo is a better or worse system. Since I'm edit locking myself, I'll add any afterthoughts to the above post below in this one.

>Are you implying that everyone will be on board with this whole "let's become communist" plan? In which country do you find people so dedicated to socialist control - to the point that the government can just rely on their full support against political opposition? I'm quite certain the majority of people would oppose the shut-down of different avenues of thought. The problem with this assertion is that it's unrealistic. That's why systems that try to pursue communism will rely on interfering with the people's autonomy - since there is no such reality by which they'd have such strong voluntary support. Besides, if said government was so determined to hush up other political ideas - doesn't that indicate that government is not confident in the support of their own people? Wouldn't the full support of the people be shown when they rebuke and deride these political ideas on their own? Doesn't that mean that, yes, they need to interfere with the people's autonomy (free thought, choice etc.) in order to shut-down other political ideas?

First, no government (besides a communist one because a communist one would have eliminated class struggle) can ever rely on the full support of its people, because so long as the systems of classism remain, those antagonized by the system will be in opposition to the system.

Second, this is where the Marxist idea of class consciousness comes from. Class consciousness must be spread in order for a successful, popular revolution.

>Doesn't that mean that, yes, they need to interfere with the people's autonomy (free thought, choice etc.) in order to shut-down other political ideas?

Yes, any classist system, including both capitalism and socialism, will have to do this in varying degrees, in order to ensure the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or of the proletariat, respectively. This article elaborates on this concept nicely. 

>It's more the destruction of autonomy that displeases me most through the communist method of using the State to meet their ends. I'm not saying that corruption is acceptable in either society. But when you mention the use of police and the protection of private property as a form of capitalism and corruption, I can't see why this can be comparable to smothering political opposition - and conversely free thought and expression. One is making sure someone doesn't kill another by fire-bombing their house, you can probably figure out which. 

First, just to clarify, when I say 'private property' what I really mean is it's application in Marxist conversation -- AKA, the means of production. Recall that socialists wish for workers to democratically manage the means of production. Due to the fact that police are the pawns capitalists use as part of the State in order to keep themselves in power, police protect private property, and attempt to control or disrupt strikes and things like that, and they are the number one obstacle in workers usurping the means of production for this reason. But police and police specifically protecting private property is just one example of the State's powers that capitalists use to remain in power.

Capitalists also use the State to smother political opposition. (Any dominant class uses the State to smother political opposition.) To see examples of this, look at America during the Red Scares, McCarthyism, the Kent State Massacre, as well as abroad in crushing leftist opposition in, for instance, South America, or even domestically with the Black Panthers as another example.

In fact, I'd go as far as to say, if we analyzed the criteria of a totalitarian society and replaced several words with 'capital' and 'capitalism' we could then say capitalist societies are thus totalitarian societies. The article I previously linked to expands on this.

>corruption will again seep into the system and thus communism will never be achieved. 

You keep on making this point, but I don't understand how this works. Please elaborate on this concept for me.

>My point about how communism and fascism, when attempted to be put into practice as a structure of government, is that both end up relying solely upon the state to control and order how everything works in order to stop itself from collapsing under civil unrest and revolt

Any classist society relies on the State to stop itself from collapsing under civil unrest and revolt.

>Mao may have improved China during his rule, but if we look at the political, social and environmental landscape it is in now we can see the failures of maintaining that balance of autonomy and control. Economy's looking good though lol.

What failures are you talking about, specifically? How did they come about as an imbalance of autonomy and control?

>I don't see how Grover Furr refutes my points on the whole totalitarianism thing

Because the point of bringing up Furr's essay was to refute,

> I was comparing Stalin's Russia with Nazi Germany as both ended up becoming similar in their aggression towards other nations - a hallmark feature of totalitarian states - and thus becoming instigators and contributing to WWII. The key point I made was, despite the political ideas on which both were founded, at that point Russia was totalitarian - since it was able to 'put aside their differences' despite the obvious hatred between the two. This will, of course, inevitably end in the breaking of the treaty by either side. I was using Stalin's Russia to demonstrate the similarities between itself and Nazi Germany, and their expansionist nature due to their totalitarian system (shown when, in the treaty, they agreed to cutting up Eastern Europe after they've won the impending conflict).

This also further supports my arguments against the notions of totalitarianism. I suppose America then possess a 'hallmark feature of totalitarian states'. Pretty much all the members of NATO would also then posses a 'hallmark feature of totalitarian states'. Poland for defending itself against Germany would then posses a 'hallmark feature of totalitarian states'. You're simply going to have to elaborate on what 'aggression towards other nations' is. I assume you mean imperialism, but then I guess America and pretty much all Western powers, in the present and in history, are examples of totalitarian societies?

>The key point I made was, despite the political ideas on which both were founded, at that point Russia was totalitarian - since it was able to 'put aside their differences' despite the obvious hatred between the two.

So are you saying any two nations making a treaty with each other are similar to each other then? What does 'put aside their differences' mean?

>Exactly what I said in the post above yours.

Okay, well then in that case, since we live in the same type of society as Marx did, his theories and critiques on society are still applicable to our society. (Some of Marx's predictions did not come true, for instance he believed proletariat revolution would occur first in developed countries and that eventually the middle class would disperse and proletarians and capitalists would be the only two classes. But this doesn't really affect much of anything.)

'Put aside their differences' - One's fascist and one's communist.

No I'm not saying that making a treaty with another nation makes you similar to them. I'm saying that both are totalitarian states - refer back to definition - and due to their centralised (and in the end, oppressive) nature they require the full support of the people more than any other classist society lest they quickly succumb to civil unrest. A method of doing so is to pit the people against an enemy (such as the communists, the reactionaries etc. etc.) so that they are more preoccupied with external conflict rather than their own internal struggles.

Due to said need for the full support of the people, they need to interfere with the autonomy of the people and subordinate their individuality (shut-down of differing perspectives/ideas, it's part of the definition I gave). That is the difference between capitalism and totalitarianism. Yes, they may share the same hallmark feature of being expansionist but we don't see America or the NATO countries as Orwellian dystopias do we? Recall the whole correlation vs causation thing I mentioned before. Therefore, when you take the steps towards communism, unless the upper class (who have even more power now that they've spread a single 'class consciousness' and have effectively hushed up all opposition) overcomes the human tendency to become more corrupt the more power one has, these governments either become totalitarian regimes or something else entirely. Either way, they'll be far from achieving communism. So in order to achieve communism, we have to strengthen an already strong classist system? Einstein himself, in his article, warned against establishing a body of government that should have power - to the extent that opposing opinions are smothered.

By full support, I mean support to the extent that people are willing to forgo the rights to free speech and are willing to strengthen the upper class above all others. Basically, you need a populous that are, in the majority, authoritarian - to this extent. Unless you do, and you're hellbent on eradicating opposing ideas 'for the safety of society', you're gonna have to interfere with their autonomy won't you? 

In 'aggression towards other nations' I was referring to the aggressive, expansionist policies of Germany and the other 'aggressors' that escalated and perpetuated tensions in the lead-up to WWII. 

Failures relating to China's poor liveability, poor humanitarian rights, huge class disparity etc. etc. etc. The current government  and the upper class practically has full reign over life as a Chinese citizen living in there. A single trip over will make it very apparent to you - this is coming from personal experience. In fact, China's communist in all but name, seeing as it's one of the most capitalist of all countries right now in social structure etc. All this came about after the whole corruption thing which leads on to...

The observation that "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The case can be made that, with an upper class that is so benevolent despite the power they possess when they enter that transitory phase between [where they started off] and communism, there can be an exception to the rule. Except that it's never happened and probably will never happen. It should be an easy concept to grasp if you look into it a bit more.

Do we live in the same society? There's no doubt that both Industrial Revolution and today's societies are capitalist based, but you haven't explained why my point is still applicable. Why is it that, when anyone can get up and quit their job (without the same fear of displacement, poverty etc. during the Industrial Revolution) to make their own business and succeed, the bootstraps argument is invalid? From what I've seen, there's even more emphasis on supporting small businesses. Sure, you may not become as big as Coca Cola but you can damn well move up in the world and live more comfortably - unlike the working class during the Industrial Revolution.

 

To basically sum up my stance on why communism will never be achieved: trying to establish such a system (where the individual is subordinated for the State/upper class) is contrary to some of the core human wants/nature. In bold are the ones it directly goes against, and the rest depends on how said system will achieve communism.

1. Health and the preservation of life

2. Food

3. Sleep

4. Money and the things money will buy

5. Life in the hereafter

6. Sexual gratification

7. The wellbeing of our children

8. A feeling of importance

(According to Dale Carnegie, renowned author on self-improvement and the techniques of dealing with people.)

The same goes for said upper class (whose interests are in bold and italics) who will have to be willing to let go of the power they possess - unless they risk revolt and everything is ruined.

 

[EDIT] Oh yeah. The model. I don't want to harp on about it but unless one is given to solve supposed systemic discrimination between castes there really is no point to talking about *all this*. That is, unless the model you're providing is a purely communist society. Then refer back to the above - and my point(s[?]) on how it is unrealistic to attain and maintain.

>Due to said need for the full support of the people, they need to interfere with the autonomy of the people and subordinate their individuality (shut-down of differing perspectives/ideas, it's part of the definition I gave). That is the difference between capitalism and totalitarianism.

Because capitalist societies don't interfere with the autonomy of the people by shutting down differing perspectives/ideas.

>but we don't see America or the NATO countries as Orwellian dystopias do we?

So now totalitarian societies are ones that mirror Orwellian dystopias as opposed to following the definitions you set? Because now we must define what 'Orwellian dystopias' are if that is our new criteria for determining if a society is totalitarian. And I'd argue that the West is generally more closely resembling Orwellian dystopias as time passes.

Also, are you implying socialist societies were Orwellian dystopias?

>overcomes the human tendency to become more corrupt the more power one has, these governments either become totalitarian regimes or something else entirely.

First, what is our definition of corrupt? Are you trying to describe revisionism, or straying from the objectives of socialist societies? Is it moving more towards totalitarianism than socialism?

Second, does science prove it is a human tendency to become more corrupt the more power one has? Or is this rather an asumption? Because if it is the latter, then it's baseless claim and thus has no purpose in any discussion about authoritarianism.

>So in order to achieve communism, we have to strengthen an already strong classist system?

No not necessarily, we just have to use the already strong classist system to aid achieving socialism/communism as opposed to achieving capitalism.

>Unless you do, and you're hellbent on eradicating opposing ideas 'for the safety of society', you're gonna have to interfere with their autonomy won't you? 

Yes, and as I said earlier, pretty much all classist societies do this.

>Do we live in the same society? There's no doubt that both Industrial Revolution and today's societies are capitalist based, but you haven't explained why my point is still applicable. Why is it that, when anyone can get up and quit their job (without the same fear of displacement, poverty etc. during the Industrial Revolution) to make their own business and succeed, the bootstraps argument is invalid? From what I've seen, there's even more emphasis on supporting small businesses. Sure, you may not become as big as Coca Cola but you can damn well move up in the world and live more comfortably - unlike the working class during the Industrial Revolution.

You are describing the petty-bourgeoisie.

>is contrary to some of the core human wants/nature

Okay, so I'm going to assume all the following you list are 'core human wants/nature'.

>1. Health and the preservation of life
>2. Food
>3. Sleep
>4. Money and the things money will buy
>5. Life in the hereafter
>6. Sexual gratification
>7. The wellbeing of our children
>8. A feeling of importance

I'd argue that only 1, 2, 3, 7, maybe 8 are 'core human wants/nature'. I don't understand how belief in the hereafter, for instance, is a 'core human want'. I guess atheists aren't people. But more importantly, I don't understand how socialism and communism goes against any of these things, besides the first part of 4, because that's the whole point. Also 5, because that is simply an idealist concept.

>Oh yeah. The model. I don't want to harp on about it but unless one is given to solve supposed systemic discrimination between castes

First, as I said earlier, besides pure theory, how different countries and communist schools of thought went about attempting to achieve communism varies. But generally, we can see that their attempts have led to great strides being made in a number of different areas.

To solve the systematic discrimination between castes, the solution is to work to achieving, and achieve communism. (?) One of the main points of communism is to stop class antagonisms. How socialism has went about in generally attempting to achieve this is by giving power to those antagonized by the system as opposed to leaving it to the antagonizers, as dialectical history teaches us is the flow of history.

Don't have much time rn so here's my quick response.

1. Search up the definition of subordination and you'll understand (I hope). The shut-down and everything was me brining up examples of how this is seen in totalitarian states - such as those that have tried to pursue communism*.

2. Throwaway line. I thought you'd get the gist of it but instead you're picking at technicalities. Oh well, can’t blame you entirely.

3. Corrupt = dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power. I'm not saying capitalism doesn't have it, I'm saying that * allows for corruption to thrive - see previous post. I'm not sure about the findings in psychology, but the fact is that this trend/tendency is very apparent and very observable in almost all instances of people attaining vast amounts of power over others via the state (such as the bourgeoisie, monarchs etc.). In fact, every time communism has been attempted to be implemented via the state they notoriously end in extreme privatisation - after totalitarianism and corruption. It's an observation, grounded in reality, of a prevailing trend seen throughout history. If you doubt this concept, answer this question. Why is capitalism bad, if not for the corrupted upper class? I can't remember the experiment's name, but it did find a correlation with its results and this observed tendency (involved getting a group of students and splitting them in two, one had power over the other and were assigned as 'wardens' over the 'criminals', honestly - with a term such as power being so ambiguous we don't have any 'scientific' proof due to the difficulty of performing a controlled test). Yet, even without sociological proof, the saying is a general admonition warning us about this very observable trend. Therefore, it is not an 'assumption' per se since we have experienced this "rule" many times over throughout history. In light of this, in what way is it baseless?

4. My point was, that the transitory period between (wherever you start off) and communism requires greater interference with the people's autonomy. From what I've seen, there is no outright persecution of others with differing political ideas in capitalist politics are there? Of course there will be condemnation of others and so forth, but noone's going around censoring those communist sites you linked us.

5. My argument was that anyone in today's society, unlike the Industrial Revolution, can join the so-called 'petty bourgeoisie', proving the bootstraps argument shouldn't be so quickly dismissed.

6. "Life in the hereafter". Maybe you should bring a dictionary with you. (Was a bit funny when you replaced 'Life' with 'Belief'.)

Hereafter = from now on

Therefore, it can also be read as "Life from the here on out" or "Life from now on."

So no, it doesn't have anything to do with religion and it isn't an 'idealist concept'. It's stuff like the liveability of the area you live in etc.

     

I would think that most people would be concerned about life, such as liveability etc., in the hereafter - so that adds 5 to the list.

Let's say you lost all your money right now. Wouldn't you be devastated? Why would that be, unless you want the things currency can buy. Seeing that currency is a core part of humanity's development in practically all fields of life - I'm inclined to believe that Carnegie is correct. That, and who doesn't want money (and the things it can buy for themselves and their family)? Certainly the majority do. Therefore, that adds 4 to the list.

We could argue about the want for sexual gratification but that's besides the point. Add it to your list or whatever.

So, what's your justification for saying the contrary? I'm not saying that everyone desires all of these, I'm saying that the majority would agree to most of the things listed here as core wants. The most common one being a feeling of importance - wherever you find that importance (maybe through a hobby or something, doesn't have to be figuring out your stance in the universe or some other huge thing like that).Maybe you feel important by collecting stamps. Maybe you want a better car compared to your neighbour. Maybe you find importance writing up stories to put onto a website.

Now that we've got that out of the way, let's talk about why communism goes against these wants. From what I know, communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society based on common ownership of the means of production and decisions in the workplace and the community are made democratically/the whole thing is run by mob rule. Note that the above are human wants. In order to achieve communism, those in power need to relinquish their hold over the resources/means of gaining/maintaining more of their wants. The same goes for those that are in the lower castes, who would need to relinquish their want for what the upper class has. Since the vast majority of us desire a feeling of importance in all sorts of differing ways,  you'd to rally these people with differing goals at feeling important, and convince them that they should feel important by having the same stuff as the other guy (and not feeling that important). If we were all stalwart bastions of utilitarianism maybe we could reach communism. But the great majority is not (if you doubt this, take a walk outside and you'll see it for yourself). Admittedly, maybe there are some Jesus level individuals out there, but there aren't enough (don’t pick on my use of Jesus, you know what I mean). That's only one want. Then there's our want/greed for more currency (reason why capitalism is a thing) - and these two trickle down through to the other wants. It's all interconnected, I hope I don't have to explain why (since it should be evident as to why these wants are interconnected). Once someone makes the move to secure more of these wants/maintain their greater hold of these wants, that state in the transitory period will swerve off-course like every other attempt at communism.

7. Name one place where communism, through the state, has been achieved. Then tell us how they achieved it. There you go, a model to start with. When you say "this is the solution, work towards achieving communism" how do we do so? How do we solve class antagonisms? Keep asking yourself how until you reach a model that satisfies your scrutiny. I never expected you to provide one, seeing the impossibility of realistically achieving communism, but it should be the first thing you think about if you're certain that communism would solve our problems - because knowing it all 'in theory' is of no help when you can't put it into practice. If I were you, I'd keep thinking about this after we're done here (unless, you've figured it out already).

>You're simply going to have to elaborate on what 'aggression towards other nations' is

How about threatening other countries for territory(Romania) and outright declaring war for it(Finland). Because of the actions of the Soviets, both countries fought with the Nazis because they feared communist aggression.

Oh look, Red Phoenix have an article written by... Red Phoenix. OK, whatever. Maybe this will be the one source Fazz has that isn't biased an... oh, it's a Communist website. Fuck it, let's see what they have to say.

OK... lot of insults, but whatever, I do the same... seems to not understand the nature of a totalitarian state's one-party thing meaning that no, other totalitarian state's aren't their allies by necessity... seems to think that I should care that Fascism can be capitalist, as if economic systems change whether the government is totalitarian...

Oh, this is good. They think that liberal democracies all have forced conscription, dictators, no freedom of speech, no freedom of arts, no freedom of press, no judges, juries, politicians and police as seperate entities, only one political party, torture by necessity... all that's blatantly false. There's a bunch of other stuff that's false but could be argued, but I don't think I'll bother doing so when I can destroy their point in easier ways.

Even if, and it's a big if, liberal democracies were totalitarian, that wouldn't negate totalitarianism. Oh look, here's a good line, "You can worship whatever god you want, but does youre religion actually free you from capital?" No, your religion doesn't, just as it doesn't cure cancer. That's doesn't negate freedom of religion. The audience size doesn't negate freedom of speech, and plenty of art isn't profitable. These guys are once again wrong.

Huzzah for capitalism, another enemy defeated!

>Oh look, Red Phoenix have an article written by... Red Phoenix. OK, whatever. Maybe this will be the one source Fazz has that isn't biased an... oh, it's a Communist website. Fuck it, let's see what they have to say.

Believe it or not when I want critiques of liberal democracies I don't look for sources written by liberal democrats.

>all that's blatantly false

.

sure thing, Mr. liberal democrat.

I'm just glad your argument here isn't 'you don't read your own sources' / 'you don't understand your own sources'.

Oh good, you agree with me. That's nice for a change. Seeing as you haven't provided any counters to my refutations once again, and I'm sure you understand things like judges and lawyers being different things, or religion not helping you financially not negating freedom of religion, or that there's multiple political parties in democracies, so I don't know how you really even could've argued. Good to see you're on my side, though.

Well, seeing that you've often cited sources and claimed they supported you when they didn't, that argument usually works. Not this time though, or at least I don't think so, this time you've just cited an idiot.

Edit: Worth noting, I decided to look up Red Phoenix to give it a look. I'm quite pleased to say the first response was an erotica writer. Anyhow, they had reviews, some of which I read. The review of Animal Farm was great, where it quite humourously says that Trotsky's exile from Russia, a clear tyrannical move from Stalin and one that . To their credit, Western Communists spoke out against Stalin's show trials when others didn't, decrying Stalin from moving away from the true Communist vision that Trotsky wanted to continue. This website, rather than use this to distance Stalin from Communism, falls to the quite stupid level of agreeing Stalin was Communist and instead trying to justify him.

Old Red also didn't like Black Ops the game, which I doubt he played, seeing as he thinks the Russian Roulette scene, based quite obviously off the Deer Hunter and a common cliche of Vietnam War films, was in a USSR labor camp. It was not. Anyhow, interesting.

For someone so adamant of exposing fallacies, why do you make the mistake of assuming I agree with you just because I don't provide any counters to your refutations? Truth be told besides the judges and lawyers and religion thing I do disagree with you for the most part, I just don't want to argue with you. (obviously when I said "sure thing" I was being sarcastic.)

Trotsky was an opportunist who had many holes in his theories. He got incredibly butthurt after Lenin died and he didn't get to become the General Secretary and from then on was generally a pain the ass. Though I'm not 100% sure, I think I read something about him collaborating or enabling the axis powers, and his mistrust of Stalin for being Georgian rather than Russian as the rest of the Bolsheviks were could be seen as pretty racist. Also, for everyone who isn't a Trotskyite or leftcom, Stalin was definitely a communist and played an important role in the creation of Marxism-Leninism. Thus, long live the immortal sciences of Marx, his successor Lenin, and his successor, Stalin.

Black Ops was pretty good, my favorite out of all the modern CoD games actually, except for the part where you work for the Americans and all.

Pray tell, what fallacy did I use? I think once again you don't understand what a fallacy is. Even if you do, you've already just agreed that the source you sited was wrong, even if partially. I assume you also understand that there's multiple political parties, that forced conscription isn't in place in place in your country. 

It's fun how you were being sarcastic, isn't it? Not like I could've been doing so, to make fun of how someone who doesn't argue their point because they know it's wrong should change their point, but you don't.

Yes, after the death of Lenin, who didn't want Stalin in power, Trotsky also didn't want Stalin in power. As Lenin's second, he should've got the position, especially after his success in the civil war and given that he was preferred by the people. In fact, when it was suggested by Stalin's goons to get rid of Trotsky to Lenin, Lenin said this.

"Throwing Trotsky overboard – surely you are hinting at that, it is impossible to interpret it otherwise – is the height of stupidity. If you do not consider me already hopelessly foolish, how can you think of that?"

Stalin then tried to minimize Lenin's power and hide Lenin's opposition to Stalin as a leader, which surprisingly Trotsky was against.

He never collaborated with the Axis powers, another instance of you being misinformed, and I doubt he was racist, which you've not provided evidence for. Obviously he was an opportunist, that's not a bad thing, and I see few more holes in his theories than Lenin's or Marx's. Feel free to list them, or once again you're talking drivel.

Anyhow, once again I'll do you the pleasure of presuming you've now realized Trotsky should've succeeded Lenin instead of Stalin, and that Social Democracies aren't totalitarian. 

Edit: You know what, I'll give a gift to anyone who reads this. The site does not believe in reverse racism. To be fair, I don't either. It's a stupid idea, because if a black person hates whites, that's just racism. Still, they believe that if blacks were racist towards whites, which they don't believe they ever can be, that would only be "reverse" racism.

https://theredphoenixapl.org/2011/01/19/briefly-on-%E2%80%9Creverse-racism%E2%80%9D/

EDIT EDIT: Ooh, I found Irish Stuff! It seems just as Fazz doesn't understand history, they don't either, as they believe the Irish war of independence was a guerilla war against the British occupying Northern Ireland. What a dopey cunt, don't talk about shit you don't know enough about, Red Boy. Also, for some reason Irish national hero James Connolly is "infamous".

https://theredphoenixapl.org/2012/04/16/remember-the-limerick-soviet/

Yes I do enjoy the multiple political parties of my lovely democratic country.

(original for third one here.)

Wow, defending Trotsky to the point of saying he should've been General Secretary, are you just defending Trotsky because I don't like him?

You realize two is multiple, yeah? So, you do have multiple parties, even in practice. Glad that's sorted.

No, I've just studied Trotsky in my study of Russian history, and it seems quite obvious that he was a better choice to succeed Lenin than Stalin who not only shouldn't have at the time, in hindsight was clearly a shitty choice thanks to his betrayal of his cause with the show trials. It is quite fascinating that at the time, Western Communists had the balls to actually call him out for his illegitimacy in his actions when other, major news organizations did not, yet you have the gall to shit on those Communists and all those who were executed by Stalin by claiming, because not only have you fallen for the admittedly propaganda-esque belief that Stalin's motive was communism rather than tyranny, but you actually try to justify him from that position.

You've actually failed to provide any reasons why Trotsky wasn't a better choice beyond obvious lies like "He was racist" and "He probably helped Nazis, I think, I don't know", which shows how little information you need to form an opinion, and to my knowledge was actually something Stalin forced other Communist leaders like Zinoview and Kamenev to say after threatening to kill their families and torturing them. I think Trotsky was wrong, but he was definitely someone actually loyal to Communism at least unlike Stalin, and the USSR would've fared a lot better under him.

EDIT: So, I had my economics test today that dictates my leaving cert results and what job I can get. Funny thing, Karl Marx came up, with all questions being easily able to be answered through the reminder on him this argument thread's given me, when the rest of the school never once studied him because he almost never comes up. So yeah, motherfuckers, Marx saved my ass! 

While as it's made clear you have no opinions of your own there's no point in trying to refute you further, as my own refutations stand and you have no position. Grover Furr is new though, so I'll defeat him.

Grover Furr once said "I have spent many years researching this and similar questions and I have yet to find one crime that Stalin committed." I think the pure amount of bias or, I suppose it's possible stupidity, to conjure up a statement like that should discredit him entirely, as well as his denial of the Katyn massacre on other sources. But who knows, maybe this will be a good piece.

Furr first uses a simple "They did it too" argument with reference to the annexing of the Sudetenland to Germany. He acts as if this wasn't an immoral act because from our point of view we'd back the West without a doubt, even though it's clear it was a stupid, immoral decision, and doesn't mean it's OK to do it in other cases. Perhaps as he seems to back Communist nations without regard to their actions, he assumes his opponents do the same for Capitalist nations.

Next he claims the line of division decided upon in Poland was for the safety of Poland itself. The flaw in this can quite easily be seen, as if they wanted a buffer zone, they wouldn't have allowed Germany to invade in the first place.

Furr then seems to think that if the officials of a government are killed or flee, then this destroys the right to self-govern of the residents of a country, which is quite blatantly false. Easily disputable, as we can see with Taiwan or France and their governments in exile that have existed. An enemy invasion of a country forcing government officials to flee does not then give another country the right to takeover. It's an absurd idea.

Furr then seems to think that it's within the power of a president to, in no official way, say in passing there's no longer a Polish president, and that has some effect on the status of a nation.It doesn't, and is another clear misunderstanding on Furr's part.

Furr also tries to argue that the actions of another country in regard to a country can destroy the authority of said country, namely Romania. No, if Ireland says that thanks to Trump there is no American government, that doesn't mean Canada can invade the US. If that happens and Ireland, an ally of the US, continues to do nothing to help, that doesn't further destroy the US' authority.

Furr also makes the disastrously stupid assumption that the USSR was not punished for its invasion by the League of Nations when it was expelled that year for its Imperialist actions. 

He also makes the almost childish argument that the agreement made between the USSR and Germany about the dividing of Poland into two areas they'd take over, the secret protocals of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, were void and never put into place as "Poland" no longer existed as soon as government officials named, as if my written plan to rob Grandpa Joe's house after he died was void, as as soon as Grandpa Joe died there was no individual of that name and thus I hadn't planned to rob him.

He last attempts to deal with the idea of a government-in-exile, which I can't stress destroys his already nonsensical argument. His argument against it is laughable, stating that if the Soviets had recognized it, then they couldn't have kept the Polish lands they invaded, as if because that was in their best interests that allowed them to not, and that it would've been an act of war against Germany, which is laughable and extremely circular. They invaded because their was no government to recognize, and there was no government recognized because they'd invaded. He also attempts to claim that recognizing it would be an act of war, which is laughable as other neutral countries did recognize it.

It's quite clear to anyone with even a vague historical background that Furr had an argument set in mind when he began his research, discrediting him entirely as a historian and academic, and that he's used every loophole imaginable to try justify the invasion, no matter how self-defeating and ridiculous. The word games he plays and the fallacies he commits as impressive, but I think anyone who had read his work would see what a fool this man did. A shame, it then seems, I'm the only one here who has.

I think if you're enjoying the luxuries of the Bourgeoisie exploitation with money that could be used heping people who can't even afford a house, yeah, you are a hypocrite. Do you think you can sufficiently criticize a system while not only using it as Guevara did to achieve power, but also enjoying luxuries born from explotiation?

Yeah, Marx is fairly easy stuff. You really don't need too much of an education to understand the basis. But good to know you're just reading books and not actually doing something, fight the system, comrade.

b8.

Ooh, ran out of appropriate responses because you can't justify enjoying luxuries born from exploitation while condemning it? You hypocritical piece of shit, how dare you criticize the system while taking advantage of it for your own filthy entertainment.

Free speech allows you say such things unless it directly leads to violence in the good ol' USA. I suppose you wouldn't understand considering your love of Mayo DingDong and Jojo Stalin. :)

It's a beautiful thing to have free speech, even when retards have it. That's why Communist nations are so good: there excessive free speech policies.

You forgot Daddy Pol Pot ;)

Well fuck it, let's just test Fazz's paranoid delusions:

NUKE AMERICA

Come and get me bitches.

I'd imagine you'd need to say a lot more that that (words you would never say, but I would) in order to get investigated.

Oh well, I’m probably on a watch list for unrelated stuff anyway.

In any case, sounds more like you’ve got more issues with the western way of life in general so why not go for Pan-Islamism or Islamic socialism instead which is the closest thing to being a Muslim Commie without the conflicting ideology.

Not sure what pan-Islamism is.

From what I've read "Islamic socialism" is more like social democracy (ie what the nordic countries do that everybody calls socialism)

Hey guys I'm a little concerned about this, should I report it somewhere or is that an overreaction?

Here's a third option: join me in my plot ;)

Okay but serious for a moment? What happened to that Warmbier kid has been hard not to think about the last few days, it's just so horrifying and sad. And I'm betting it would be even moreso if they hadn't made sure he couldn't describe what was done to him afterwards.

I was going to say no, but I wouldn't want Muslims being foster parents.

Is psychology a real science?

Lol all science is fake.

Decolonize your mind, asshole. All Science is Colonization Science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9SiRNibD14

Ah, been looking for something to restore faith in humanity.

exactly! preach it sister

Of course it is. Why is this even in question?

Who are you again?

Random bored person on the internet. Does it matter?

Well yeah it kinda does. I just said science is fake, and I'm a very important person on these forums. My facts hold weight. You on the other hand are nobody.

The rabbit avatar and name reminds me of insanebutvain, but without all the slutty bragging.

Lol, okay, point taken. You exude self-importance.

In any case, I'm only arguing that psychology is classified as a science by definition. That's the one thing I feel strongly about to bother posting on the forums.

For the question of whether or not science itself is real, I'm on a neutral standpoint. I can see why science can be considered fake. Even physics, which is probably considered most sciencey, has loads of bullshit. String theory? Einstein's relativity theory? Jeesh. Can't be proven and doesn't matter in real life.

psychology is a really dirty subjective science at its core which is why math, physics, and chemistry will always be the best

Pffh, Mathematicians are a load of jerk-offs. At least the rest of them are still discovering useful shit, while the Mathematicians play around with Imaginary numbers.

Actually most mathematicians nowadays are developing equations to figure out black holes. As long as there are measurable physical constants there's differential equations that can be made. A lot still are going for economics. Modern Algebra is a very high level math course which deals with a lot of economical models and theories to make sure money will continue to work regardless of future booms or depressions. The rest usually go for engineering, computer sciences, or microbiology. Microbiology has particular use for mathematicians because the requirement for a biology degree is only calc 1 while if they took calc 2 and linear algebra they'd be able to get far more accurate population size counts and their relations to experimental variables. I use linear algebra every day in bots to compress data. Most of the math majors I know are going for civil or mechanical engineering.

Pretty much nobody deals with imaginary numbers after calc 1 or 2. We just ignore them and anything that has it in them because they either a) get absorbed by constants of integration somehow or b) become an oscillating portion of the curve which is usually irrelevant because 99% of the time we only care about the portion participating in exponential growth.

Also imaginary numbers are only taught in high school algebra classes because the math teachers are beating around the bush of telling people the truth is that they usually don't matter but you end up with them in a lot of equations anyways. Similar to how in calc 1 (or precalc in some places) they beat aroudn the bush of telling people what a derivative is and how to solve for one by using some convoluted method like delta-epsilon or learning limits. Fuck limits. I've never used a limit since the day we learned what a derivative was. It's just bs until it all comes together in high level math classes where you understand how all the puzzle pieces fit together and why euler was such a fucking god.

Well that turned into quite a tangent. Math is useful - mathematicians get paid a lot to understand and create equations for things that other people don't know how to do or explain. Most don't involve imaginary numbers cause they're irrelevant. These days you can't discover much without proving you discovered it using math to esnure it's true.

Pffh, they still came up with something imaginary, they are faggots.

but it isn't imaginary they're just called imaginary because regular people wouldn't understand. Also the term "undefined indefinitely" is already taken and very confusing.

math people are really not good at naming terms :L

Psychology is basically all imaginary though sooo :D

No, it's imaginary.

Meh. I'm not saying psychology is more like a science than chemistry or physics. It sure is more applicable in the day-to-day than the others. I'm just saying it's classified as a science.

Google science and you get the definition: "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

Which can describe psychology quite perfectly. And it's not subjective--just consider the use of statistics (math!) in psychology experiments.

statistics is a disgusting math when we made a math club at my college we thought about just not accepting people who pride themselves on statistics cause they would bring the quality of the math down in the room

Stats can actually be useful.

Calculus, on the other hand? I haven't found the need to use Green's theorem at any point so far in my life.

yeah me neither but statistics is for those of simple minds and weak constitutions. children learn statistics - real men enjoy differential equations.

Standard deviation and shit makes me want to kill myself and integration of trigonometric functions makes me want to cream myself: Calculus > stats anyday m8 no question.

Well now you're just making up words.

Yeah... You're right. I suppose Newton didn't really do anything and was just a filthy layabout freeloader off his parents, pretending that all the little letters actually do mean things and it all works out if you apply the ever illusive 'calculus'. I suppose I'm just another brainwashed mathematical ideologue to the cause of desperately trying to convince my parents to discard the pitiful disappointment they truly feel as I slowly wither in their basement like a living stereotype, devoid of real human contact. You got me!

Ah, I see you are a man of culture as well.

I've dabbled. Not quite at your level though! A true man of culture calls it 'maths', not math.